Diversity is like a virus, or Divirus. It is a disease or Diversease. It is a meme as a parasitic 'ideorganism' that burrows into white people's minds not unlike hookworms, fleas, and lice that, once attached to their hosts, are difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of.
Diversity doesn’t really mean diversity per se is great. It's just a parasitic mind-trick to fool rich successful nations into letting in outsiders from poorer ones.
After all, if diversity is so great in and of itself, people in diverse nations should stay put. Such nations exist all over the non-white world(and in regions where whites are a minority). Latin American nations are very diverse, most of them with white minorities. Africa is diverse in terms of languages and tribes. North Africa is racially diverse and mixed. Turkey is diverse of ethnicity and languages and cultures, far more than European nations(before mass migration). Central Asia is diverse, made up of whites, Asians, Muslims, Turks, etc. India is very diverse, and so is Indonesia. So, they have more diversity than much of the West(or Far East nations like Japan). If diversity is so great, those people should stay put in their ultra-diverse nations. After all, they have the magic wonder of diversity all around them.
They should not try to go to US, Canada, Australia, Japan, or EU that are far less diverse or even near-homogeneous. After all, we are told diversity is so great. Then, people should stay in their own diverse nations than head for less diverse nations of the West. Why head to horrible homogeneous nations or to terrible LESS diverse nations away from ultra-diverse nations?
As it turns out, the most successful and prosperous nations have been the relatively homogeneous ones in Europe and East Asia, especially Japan. The thing is organisms(and humans are organisms) want to migrated to and invade places that are more bountiful, efficient, and convenient.
But how do you convince homogeneous prosperous nations that they must open up to foreigners? You infect them with the diversity virus or divirus. Make them feel bad or shameful for being homogeneous and not diverse enough. Make them feel something is wrong about their society for lacking sufficient diversity. Make Diversity morally assertive and make lack of diversity morally defensive. Make Diversity-Deficiency a kind of social malady, disease, or dysfunction(even though white societies were far more functional with homogeneity).
Fool them into thinking diversity is noble and wonderful whereas homogeneity is wicked and evil. Tell them that Diversity-Disease or Diversease is the cure whereas Healthy-Homogeneity is an illness. Fool them into thinking their societies will be improved with diversity. But if diversity is the magic pill, how come so many diverse nations in Latin America, North Africa, and Central Asia are failures. How come India is such a mess whereas relatively homogeneous China has achieved more? Who really thinks Israel will be better if filled with more Africans and Muslims at the expense of Jewish demography? (The only successful nation with diversity is the US, but this has to be seen in proper historical context. In its formative stages, the US was far less diverse than Latin America that has always lagged behind. Also, the white North was more successful and productive than the diverse South with lots of blacks. And, until 1965, the US was 90% white. And even Ethnic whites who arrived in early 20th century were Anglo-Americanized by education, culture, and propaganda. And we must remember that the US rose to great power status long before the 1965 immigration act. Diversity didn’t make America rich and powerful. If anything, America attracted diversity because its relative homogeneity was far more successful than the preponderance of diversity in Latin America. Also, the ONLY two non-white-gentile groups that contributed something unique to America have been blacks and Jews. Blacks had a huge influence on music, and Jews contributed in many brainy fields. But to get the full picture, one mustn’t overlook the negative cost of black presence in the US, what with all the crime, pathology, violence, thuggery, corruption. Also, there is a dark side to black music, especially in rap, that promotes sociopathic tendencies, nihilism, and neo-savagery. As for Jews, their spread of PC has done incalculable damage to the West, and their war-mongering has made a total mess of the 21st century. Europeans who see ‘cool badass hip’ blacks in US sports, music, & movies and want some of that stuff in Europe fail to see the bigger picture of black impact on the US: Detroit, Baltimore, Ferguson, and etc. Is Detroit worth it because of Motown? Should Japan Detroitize its cities with lots of black crime & pathology in the hope that its music culture might become more ‘vibrant’? But then, if you want to listen to black music, you don’t need blacks. Just buy a CD or download stuff on the internet. It's like you don't need real Italians or real Chinese in your nation to learn how to make pizza or chop suey.)
So, all this Diversity talk is disingenuous. If homogeneous nations in Europe, Japan, US, and Canada were dirt poor and famished, no one would press diversity on them. No one would want to go there, so who’d care if they accepted foreigners or not in the name of Diversity? After all, no one presses Cameroon, Mozambique, or Bolivia to embrace more diversity. Diverse or homogeneous, what does it matter? Who’d want to move to a failed black African nation? Who would want to move to messy India(unless one can be assured of good job and can live in the nicest parts; being poor in the US is preferable to being middle class in India).
If white nations were poorer than non-white ones, no one would care if whites embraced diversity or not. It just so happens that whites are best at creating wealth, producing nice stuff, and running functional societies. And foreigners want access to the White Cow to drink the milk. Since they have no ancestral claim or national right to white lands, they invoke Diversity as a noble ideal to gain access. And plenty of cucks in the West, having been mentally colonized by globo-homo PC, fall for this shtick.
Jews pioneered this mind-trick since their success and power have depended on access to white non-Jewish nations, even to the point of gaining elite domination over them. Any idea of a ‘World of Our Own’ for whites is anathema to Jews since it means Jews may be left out in the cold(and made to live in non-white worlds where the natives aren’t so nice and productive as whites are).
So, Jews have persuaded whites that it is ‘racist’ for whites to have things for themselves: White lands, white wealth, white institutions, white women, and etc. must all be made available to non-whites and Jews. And then, non-whites of all stripes have allied with Jews to make the same demands.
Once whites are infected with Divirus, they can no longer have anything to call their own. Even their past history is retrofitted to serve PC. So, BBC now makes historical shows with blacks and other non-whites in white roles. Even past history must be ‘corrected’ and made diverse to send a message to whites that ANY vision of a ‘world of our own’ must be banished from white minds, past-present-and-future. Don’t even think about it, don’t even feel nostalgia for it. Even memory is ‘racist’ unless the past is rewritten as a 'diverse' narrative. Just like the Tyrell Corporation in BLADE RUNNER implants someone else's memories into Rachel's mind, Jewish Power is implanting false historical memories into the minds of whites. Thus, impressionable white British children now grow up seeing black and non-white characters as key figures and heroes of British & European History on TV and in movies. Donna Zuckerberg, a disgusting Jewish globo-homo agent, says Ancient and Medieval periods of Europe weren't white but belonged just as much to blacks, Muslims, and Asians. I suppose Poles should celebrate the Mongol incursions into their territory. And Spanish should celebrate their subjugation under the Moors. (Using this logic, the French have just as much claim to Vietnam since they once invaded and ruled over it.) To Jews, white people are mere 'replicants' whose minds exist only to be messed with.
Once whites have been infected by Divirus, whatever they do must ‘include’ non-whites. So, if whites want to move from the browning city and settle in the suburbs, the suburbs too must eventually surrender to diversity because, otherwise, they’d be ‘non-inclusive’, therefore 'racist' and evil. They are to be inspected and penalized for lack of diversity. Diversity is offered as a vitamin but it's really a virus.
Whatever whites possess(through inheritance or ingenuity) must be shared with others. Because this idea has been virally programmed into the very core of the white ideological DNA, it is now deemed wrong for whites to do anything without adding diversity. If whites want to go to Mars and settle a colony there, they MUST include diversity even if all the science and funds were provided by whites. So, non-whites are allowed to freeload and piggyback on whiteness. And there is white-shaming for whites who create anything that resembles a World of Our Own. According to the Jewish Narrative, white scientists not only stole the labors of Jewish genius but hid the contributions of blacks who were REALLY responsible to sending American astronauts to the Moon.
Related to Diversity is the virus of ‘Inclusion’(really a euphemism for invasion). It’s just parasitism on the part of non-whites to leech off whites. Since non-whites can’t do much on their own, they must rely on the white world to have nice things for themselves. So, they invoke ‘inclusion’ to pressure whites to ‘include’ non-whites into anything nice created by whites.
Now, if non-whites really believe in racial equality(as they claim to), they must believe that non-white nations can have nice things too. After all, Latin America is huge with tons of natural resources. Africa has lots of nice places, lots of people, tons of natural resources, and has great potential. The success of white farmers in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa in the past is a testament of what people can achieve in Africa if they really have a mind to. PC says all races are equal, so all peoples must be equally capable and should be able to have nice things in their own nations by doing what whites did in white nations.
But, of course, races are different, and some races fail badly at creating and running modern societies. So, the only way they can have Nice Things is to gain entry into the White World. But they have no ancestral right or national claim to white lands. (In the New World, only American Indians have ancestral claim to the land. Only they can make a moral claim against whites who conquered. In contrast, non-whites around the world have NO moral claim to come to America or Canada as the New World wasn't taken from them.) So, they rely on the guilt-tripping ideo-virus of ‘inclusion’ that makes white people feel 'guilty' for not ‘including’ masses of non-whites. Under PC-mental-infection, whites feel good only when they allow ‘inclusion’, which really means invasion, via which so much of nice things created by whites are leeched by non-whites. We are often told that the Chinese Exclusion Act was a horrible thing. But why? Didn't the Chinese invade and take over Tibet? Do the Chinese invite people from all over the world to share in the colonization of Tibet? It seems Tibet is for Han Chinese Only and excludes the rest of the world.
On the other hand, I can understand why white folks prefer immigrants to blacks. Better to use immigrants as buffers.
I find this curious. Donald Trump, sincerely or not, condemned Bush's WMD lies and Iraq War. He condemned Obama and Hillary as destroyers of Libya and enablers of ISIS in Syria. He said he would strive for greater stability and peace in the region(though it must be said his record in Yemen, as continuation of Obama's policy, has been disastrous; and his Iran Policy has been worse than Obama's). In other words, less Invade, less Intervention.
In contrast, Hillary, as the Democratic candidate, was threatening WWIII with Russia over Syria, which means Middle East will blow up even more. Also, she and her globo-feminist cohorts were largely responsible for the chaos and destruction in Libya and Syria.
Now, you'd think most Muslims would side with Trump over Hillary and Deep State Democrats. Granted, the GOP has been just as belligerent(if not more so) than the Democrats when it came to the Middle East, but Trump ran in 2016 as the most anti-war candidate, thus alienating many Neocons in the GOP. And as President, despite his sometimes volcanic rhetoric, he restrained the hawks when it came to North Korea and Syria. For these reasons, one would expect Muslims to be more favorable toward Trump as the politician who is less likely to spread more hell-fire and brimstone in their homelands in the Middle East. And I think they would have been... if not for the issue of immigration.
Suppose the US has had a zero-immigration policy since 1965 and took in no one from the Middle East, North Africa, and Muslim nations. Then, Muslims would have no hope of entering the US. Under those circumstances, I think most Muslims living in their home nations would have preferred Trump over Hillary(and Democratic Deep State hawks). Their worldview would have more-or-less run parallel to the position of the Alt-Right and Paleo-Con types who call for no more wars. They would have reviled Neocons, Zionists, and Liberal Interventionists.
So, why do so many Muslims(there and here) side with the very Americans(Neocons, Liberal Zionists, Democracy-pushers, hawks, New-Cold-Warriors, etc) who are most hellbent on wreaking more havoc in the Muslim World? Why do they fear America First more than America Thirst(for oil and domination)?
Because... even though the Alt-Right, Paleocons, and America-Firsters are more likely to be for peace and non-intervention, they are also likely to be more anti-immigration-invasion.
For Muslims, entry into the West is like a drug. They crave it and dream of it, indeed so much so that they will side with the very people who are doing most to destroy the Muslim World, the very homelands of Arabs and Muslims.
In a way, America/West has a narco-drug effect on all the world. These non-white folks seeking access to the West will join with ANY SIDE that serves the role as the PUSHER-of-the-'dream'. It's like an addict will neglect his own house, family, and kids to get another fix of that smack or crack from the dealer.
The desire to go where the mammoths are(white wealth is mammoth meat to the migrant-hunters of the world) distorts all values. It was the desire to go to America that made Fabrizio betray Michael in THE GODFATHER. He didn't personally hate Michael or his bride. But he wanted to go to America so badly that he was willing to betray the very people who'd hired him and trusted him.
This craving for the Invite-Immigration-Smack makes Muslims form an alliance even with Zionists and Neocon War-mongers. Also, despite their noises about Islamic values and Middle Eastern pride, they privately prefer rule by whites than by their own cousin-humping kind.
People do care about tribe and culture, but they are still organisms and prefer the Good Life, the place where the mammoths are. This is true of anyone. Suppose one had to choose between one's homeland where it's hot, dry, and requires lots of work to get by AND another land where the temperature is nice and where fruits grow in abundance. One's cultural sense might cling to the homeland out of loyalty and heritage, but one's organismic self will want to go to the land of mangoes. This is true of animals in the wild. They go where the plants, game, and water are. Among humans, it's somewhat different because humans don't just live off nature like their primitive ancestors did. Humans build their own economies, and it just so happens that whites have proven most adept at creating the best economies and most functional systems. (Even if non-whites were to face discrimination in the West, they'd still live in a stabler and more orderly system where whites do things better than non-whites do in their own lands. So, even left-overs and crumbs from whites are more than what they get in their own homelands where they may not be subjected to discrimination but have so little because people are so corrupt, inept, and do a crappy job of running things.) Indeed, it's amusing that so many Third Worlders head to Sweden, a cold dark part of the world with long winters(much of it in total darkness). So, why go there? Because Swedes build, manage, and run good economies, whereas non-whites are dysfunctional even in nicer lands with more natural resources, good climate, and etc. One thing for sure, the non-whites are not going to Scandinavia for the weather. They are going to feed off white mammoths. (As a result, whites may go extinct just like the mammoths that couldn't survive the onslaught of migratory hunters.)
Because whites developed the Midas-touch, they were drawn to primitive and backward places in the Age of Empire and could make a positive difference. Whites could go to South America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, Asia, and etc. and build something from nothing. Even the great Chinese civilization was amazed by what the British could do with Hong Kong almost overnight. Turn a muddy island into a booming city in a short span. But the Age of Empire eventually came to an end. And whites were forced to go back to Europe from many parts of the world that they'd colonized. And for a time, non-whites believed they could do just as well as whites by building up their own nations... but only a handful of nations succeeded in this. And so, lacking the Midas touch, the ONLY way they could have the good life was by migrating to white nations. So, we are now in the Age of Demographic Imperialism. Reverse-imperialism, this time the migration of non-white peoples without the Midas touch heading to the lands of white people with the Midas touch. If, in the Age of Empire, white colonizers made something out of nothing in non-white lands, non-white reverse-colonizers will make nothing out of something as they leech off whites in ever greater numbers. Also, ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs will create destructive black kids out of white wombs. Black leech-sperms will feed off white wombs to create horrible Negrolets.
The notable exception has been Israel. If the post-war West has been mostly about non-white migration-invasion to white nations, Israel was a concerted effort among Jews to favor cultural obligations over organismic wants. Materially, any Jew is better off in Europe or US than in hot and dry tiny Israel. But the call of culture inspired many Jews to settle in the Holy Land and defend it. But then, Jews, like white gentiles, are another people with the Midas touch, able to create something out of nothing. Jews know this, and Jews know others want what they got, so they erect barriers to keep their mammoths to themselves. But Jews in America fear that their mammoths might be taken by non-Jewish whites one day. So, Jews welcome more immigrant-invaders so that diverse gentiles will squabble over the white mammoth meat than salivate after the Jewish mammoth meat.
Things were much simpler right after WWII. Back then, neither the US nor Europe allowed mass immigration-invasion from the Third World. So, people in the Third World thought in terms of 'kick out imperialists' and 'do whatever is necessary to boost our power and sovereignty'. But ever since the West opened its door to immigration-invasion by non-whites, the priority of so many in the non-West is going to the West for easy mammoth meat than fixing their own nations and farming their own mammoth.
It's like how the slave trade distorted the economies of West Africa. While slave trade had always been a fixture among black Africans, the tremendous amount of wealth to be made from the Atlantic Slave Trade made so many blacks drop everything to go capture other blacks to sell to whites. Things got so bad that the Africans sacrificed humans to crocodile gods to stall the decline.
It's also like any gold rush. People hear about get-rich-quick opportunities and drop everything to look for gold. All these non-whites are addicted to White Rush. White lands are where the mammoths are, and it is the quickest and easiest way for them to attain anything in life. It might take a lifetime or many generations(or never) for many parts of the non-West to achieve anything approaching Western levels of success. But if you go to the West, they offer you sanctuary, benefits, favors, protection, housing, welfare, and etc. Also, there are lots of self-hugging white assholier-than-thouists who will defend you and even elevate to saint status.
In the US, Jewish power is undeniable. Jewish power may be less extensive in the EU, but Shoah Worship is stronger there than here. Also, EU nations are essentially servant-states of the US, and their intellectuals and bureaucrats take cues from ideas emanating from Harvard and Yale and US media.
Anyway, all this highfalutin talk of 'liberty', 'inclusion', 'diversity', 'proposition', and etc. are BS. It is really about nonwhite craving for white mammoth meat. It is organismic. Nonwhites pressure the white world to live up to 'high ideals' not because they prize principles but because they want access to easy white mammoth meat. If all of the US was one giant Detroit, would Jews or Muslims or any other people care if US was a 'proposition nation' or not? No one would want to come here, just like no one wants to move permanently to Africa.
People are better off studying biology than political science to understand what is really going on in world affairs.
All organisms, including humans of course, are invasivist(offensive) and nativist(defensive). Some are more invasive than others, but all are invasive to some measure. Some are more nativist than others, but all must also be nativist to some degree.
Living organisms are not content to stay put. They like to spread out and take over more turf. If bacteria or viruses are making someone sick, they are NOT content to stick with that person. They spread out and take over other men and women. It's like the pod creatures in THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. Or the morphing organism in THE THING.
It has this need to take over other areas. But humans are like that too. After all, why do humans have military bases in Abel Ferrara's BODYSNATCHERS? Why else have humans colonized a distant corner of Antarctica in John Carpenter's THE THING?
Why are they in the land of penguins? Because humans too are invasive. So, the dynamics of THE THING is a war between invaders: Humans vs The Thing. But both are also defenders of what they claim. Humans seek to defend their 'new nativist' turf in Antarctica. And the Thing tries to hold onto the humans, dogs, and other organisms it has colonized; they've become part of its turf. (There are two kinds of claimants. Of the tangible and of the intangible. Those who claim land or immovable objects are claimants of the tangible. Those who claim people's minds or systems(of a Mercurian nature) are claimants of the intangible. Nationalist power is about taking over and defending a definite piece of territory; it is tangible. Christian or ideological power is about infecting and taking over the minds of people all over; it is intangible. Christianity doesn't have to take over Chinese territory to take over Chinese hearts & minds. It only needs to infect and own the souls of converts. Finance is somewhere between tangible and intangible. In the end, finance has power because money can be converted to real goods and properties. But the global financial system allows massive amounts of money-power to easily and instantly flow from one part of the world to another.)
In Carpenter's movie, what the humans fear most is that the Thing will try to spread out and take over all organisms around the world: all humans and all animals and maybe all plants too if such is possible. (The Thing could turn into a penguin or whale and then take over other sea creatures and then swim across oceans and climb up onto other continents.) So, the humans try to prevent the Thing from taking over humans in the station. If the Thing colonizes every human, then the thing-ized humans can go move to other continents and colonize other humans, and then, the human species will all be Thing-ized. The cucksters of the West have been pod-ized and thing-ized by the Glob.
Sometimes, there is a duality, an anxiety, even in the colonized or ones being colonized. We see this in Blair in THE THING.
There are two ways the Thing can take over someone. By physically overwhelming the person, killing him, and copying his DNA. Or, it can infect a person and slowly change the person from the inside. That seems to be the case with Blair. Because he operated on the Thing, it's possible that some of the Thingy germs got into his skin and bloodstreams. So, the Thing is incubating inside him like a virus and taking over gradually.
There is a moment when Blair's mentality becomes dualistic. He feels the human emotions of wanting to defend the human species. But he also feels the Thingy emotions of wanting to take over the human species. Among whites, some remain nationalist and resist the Glob. Some have been completely mentally colonized by the Glob. But there are those who feel anxiety and inner-crisis. Their natural white racial instinct tells them that globalism means hell for the white race. But they've also been infected by the Glob virus that makes them feel 'racist' and wicked for feeling such thoughts. So, to suppress their 'evil' side, they might become extra-fanatical to push the Glob agenda. But then, it maybe possible to come up with new mental-vaccinations to change back the pod-people to sane nationalist white people. After all, there have been cures for certain diseases such as mumps, syphilis, and etc. There is a cure for Globohomostoma.
Nativism is the flipside of invasivism. One cannot exist without the other. After all, to invade means to make an effort and a claim. It isn't merely wandering into new territory accidentally or arbitrarily. It's about advancing with the purpose of making a claim upon the territory. When you invade, take over, and make a claim, it means you have to own it, defend it, guard it, and preserve it. Thus, you as invavist also must be prepared to play the role of nativist on the territory that you have conquered and claimed. If you don't play the nativist role, other invasive elements will take it from you, and then, the whole point of your invasion would have been for naught. If you're going to give up what you conquer, why conquer it in the first place? Why not just leave it alone? When a team wins the championship trophy, it knows it has to keep playing hard to keep the title. Otherwise, another team will take it.
Wolves don't have colleges and study political science, but they instinctively understand this fact of life. Wolves don't invade another territory just for the hell of it but to take over and claim it. They mark the territory with body scents and urine. They guard it through violence and group unity. So, invasivist(or offensivist) wolves are also nativist(definsivist) wolves. If you invade but don't protect what you've invaded, you won't keep it because other invasivist forces will take it from you. The invasivist must also be nativist to keep its bounty. It's like a taker of water needs a bucket(without holes) to keep the water. It's like the character of OLD MAN AND THE SEA is both an invasivist hunter and nativist holder of his trophy. He invades the sea to catch a marlin, but he does everything to defend his catch from other invasivist predators. Hyenas try to guard their kill from other hyena packs, leopards, and lions.
It's like football. The game is invasivist and nativist. Each team tries to invade and grab more of the territory of the other team. But invading isn't enough. What is invaded must also be defended in nativist mode. What is taken from the Other must be guarded as Ours. Because all organisms are invasivist by nature, organisms must nativistically defend what they've invasively conquered.
This is true of all nations. Israel was created(or regained) by invasivism -- Jews had lost it long ago to the invasivism of the Romans. Zionists arrived as invasivists and drove out the Palestinian nativists. But Zionist Israelis must now be nativist and defend what they've claimed for themselves. Without such nativist zeal, the fate of Israeli Jews will be that of Palestinians(and Swedes 50 yrs hence).
The cleverest invasivists try to weaken the nativist resolve of their enemies or targets. Thus, the invasion is made easier, as Greeks did with the Trojans with the false gift of the Wooden Horse. But once the invasion has taken place, the invasivists must turn nativist if they are to keep what they invaded and claimed.
Jews have two ways of doing this. In the case of Israel, it is majority-nativism. Since Jews comprise the dominant demography of Israel, they can be straightforward nativist-nationalist in declaring THIS MUST BE A JEWISH STATE.
But Jews can never take the US, Canada, and EU in such manner. Jews can never be the outright majority in those territories. So, if Jews promote nativism in such nations, it will only lead to white nativist consciousness, white pride, white unity, and white power... which may challenge Jewish minority elite supremacy. So, Jews cannot act like invading wolves in the West like they did in Palestine. They must operate more like invading viruses that penetrate into cells undetected and alter the programming of the goyim from the inside. By colonizing white minds and persuading them that 'diversity' and 'multi-culturalism' are the highest & noblest goods while white identity, racial consciousness, homogeneity, and nativism are the greatest evils, white organisms are rendered less nativist and lose the will to defend themselves against the invasivist Third World that wants access to the richer West(just like predators and parasites head for areas where food is more bountiful). Worse, the PC virus might fool whites into thinking that 'Western Values' are all about welcoming Diversity or endless invasion from the Third World. Now, what kind of sane ideology is predicated on welcoming and celebrating mass invasion? But then, Jews fooled whites into believing 'gay marriage' is the New Normal in morality. Clever Jews sure run circles around square whites(who, despite their hipster conceits, are pretty earnest and childlike).
Now, why would the invasion of the West by the non-West be good for Jews? Won't Jews be invaded too, along with whites? There is that danger to be sure, but Jews are banking on Diversity as insurance for the dominant minority elite(that would be themselves). More Diversity means less unity among the masses. It means the elites can effectively play divide-and-rule among the disunited masses. Thus, Jewish elite power will remain secure above the fray of the squabbling non-Jews divided by diversity. But, some may ask, what if the newcomers challenge Jewish elite power and status? Won't they topple the Jews one day? Jews aren't too worried about such hypothesis since most immigrant-invasivists don't have the wherewithal to rise very high. African immigrants, Muslim immigrants, and 'Hispanic' immigrants(the non-white ones) are mostly limited in ability. East Asians can rise higher, but they lack the spark and leadership qualities to really take over. Also, too many East Asian women have kids with whites and Jews for there to be East Asian unity. The only people who might pose a threat to Jewish dominance are Asian-Indians, many of whom are intelligent and entrepreneurial. Also, Asian-Indians tend to stick together in sex and reproduction. And there are so many of them, and many more are being born. India now has 1.3 billion people and will soon be more populous than China, if it isn't already. It has more people than all of Western Europe and US combined. This is why Jews are trying to forge 'friendly' ties with Asian-Indians and Pakistanis. Jews hope for a Zio-Indo wink-wink cooperation against white power. (Pakistanis are more useful than other Muslims since they are not Arab and thus less likely to care about Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) Also, Jews know that Asian-Indian elites are not a united bloc like the Chinese and other East Asians. While most Chinese feel as one people from top to bottom, no such feeling of solidarity exists among the various ethnic groups and neo-castes of Indian society. Indian elites see themselves as an ethnically distinct people who rule over OTHER ethnic groups. Because of the tensions between Indian elites and the diverse masses, the political dynamics are somewhat similar to Jews and non-Jews in the West. Jews are like the Brahmin caste that rules over non-Jews, and Indian elites are like South Asian 'Jews' ruling over lesser groups. So, Hindu elites and Jewish elites see eye-to-eye to some degree.
Anyway, Jews know that have an advantage that Hindus and Pakistanis lack. Jews can pass as whites, whereas Hindus and Pakistanis can't. So, Jews play it both ways. Jews play the Asian-Indian card against whites. Jews go to Asian-Indians and Pakistanis and say, "Look, we Jews and you Indians/Pakistanis are victim-brothers against those white supremacist racist nativist scum." And Hindus and Pakistanis play along because they want continued access to the richer West. But Jews also curtail Hindu-Pakistani power in the West by playing to white fears and anxiety. The coded Jewish message to whites is, "We Jews ain't Christian, but we are 'white' too, just like you white gentiles. So, Jewish power is still white power, whereas Asian-Indian power is Alien. Therefore, white gentiles should support Jews against Asian-Indians if differences were to arise between Jews and Hindus."
Jews play it like the character in YOJIMBO and A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS. They play every side against each other. They don't play it like the honorable Gregory Peck character in THE BIG COUNTRY who is caught between two feuding clans and valiantly attempts to resolve the conflict and bring peace. In contrast, Jewish globalist-supremacists thrive on the conflict among various groups. They are like Paul McCartney's 'grandfather' in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT. A king mixer.
Anyway, those who conquer must also be prepared to defend. Otherwise, what was the whole point of all that preparation, investment, industry, risk-taking, and sacrifice in the conquest? I mean, imagine if Zionists went through all that trouble of invading Palestine and laboring to create Israel... just to hand it over to Africans, Iranians, Hindus, and Chinese. Why invade something just to let others invade it? Why climb a mountain to give the credit to another?
To invade something means to make a claim, and once the claim is made, it has to be defended in nativist mode. Multi-culturalism is a Jewish globalist mind-virus trick that fools all nations that they must NOT defend their homelands in the spirit of nativism. PC turns the claim into a 'blame' of 'white guilt'. Whites are told they must surrender to invasivism. Now, why would Jews promote such things all over the world when they don't for Israel?
Because when all gentile nations become less nativist and defensive and embrace the cult of Diversity, they will lose a sense of unity and solidarity. And that means Jewish globalist power can more easily infiltrate and penetrate and take over. Jews also use the homo-agenda to weaken the moral pride and confidence of every nation. Any nation that celebrates the perverse 'sexual' behavior of homos as the highest moral good has lost its equilibrium and bearing. Such a degenerate nation can be manipulated and subverted by any foreign power. This is why Jews are bitter about Russia's resistance to the globo-homo-agenda, the proxy of Jewish supremacists.
Anyway, the multiculturalist experiment in the US, Canada, and EU should be studied as a cautionary tale on what happens when nations surrender their nativism. Without nativism, your people and nation will succumb to more invasivists who arrive and take what belongs to your people: the land, the wealth, the womenfolk, and the children too(like at Rotherham) that were claimed and defended by your ancestors.
It's true that every nation is the creation of invasivists sometime in history. Every nation, old or young, is a territory with a history of invaders and conquerors. But those invavists made a claim on what they invaded, and that meant they defended it in the mode of nativists. They, as invaders, understood and feared that invaders can be invaded in turn. So, if invaders are to keep what they've invaded, they must turn into nativists over the land that they've claimed as their own. It's no different with wolves. An invading wolf pack invades turf from another wolf pack. But then, it can also lose that territory to yet more wolf packs. So, when a wolf pack takes land, it must turn nativist and defend it from others. This is why Israel has survived over the years. Zionist invaders took the land from Palestinians. But through brute force of the IDF, patriotic race-ist immigration policy open only to Jews, and nationalist education, Israel has preserved itself and prevented it from being invaded in turn by other peoples. The US used to be like a giant Israel for European folks.
This is why all this stuff about America's 'racist' immigration policies is total BS.
Yes, it is true that white folks invaded and took the land from Indians(and wild animals). But the whole point of invasion is to make a claim on the land you invade. After all, why go through all the trouble of invading(often a violent, bloody, and taxing process) if you're not going to make such a claim? For every ounce of happiness, there was also lots of pain in the creation and expansion of America. It took tremendous work and even great sacrifice at times. So, why should whites folks just hand over what their ancestors invaded and claimed to other would-be invaders? This is especially bogus when whites did most of the work whereas the new would-be invaders just come and live off the bounty of what the ancestors of whites have done to create. Whites make something out of nothing, and others live off that something while spitting on whites(at the behest of vicious Jewish Supremacists). Worse, these new invaders, brainwashed by PC, spit on the graves of white people who'd done so much to build America.
It's like a battle. It takes tremendous blood sacrifice. Lots of soldiers get killed. Lots of families will never see their kids again. So, if one side gains territory in war, it was often at great cost in terms of life and material. So, if territory is gained through war, it must be defended so that it won't fall to the enemy once again. If land that was won through great sacrifice won't be defended, what was all that sacrifice for?
The reason why so many white peoples lack nativist instinct is three-fold: (1) They had it too good for too long, and they have lost the survivalist-organismic instinct (2) Pop Culture-as-main-culture has severed their ties to history and roots. So, they are unaware of the sweat-and-toil of their ancestors. Also Pop Culture makes them prefer other cultures, especially that of the Negro, over their own kind since Negroes be fun, funky, and shi*. It leads to amnesiac jungle-hipster neo-savagery among white youths. (3) PC has filled whites with 'white guilt', so even whites who know something about history see it through the prism of 'white historical sins' as manipulated by Jewish-controlled media and academia. Also, PC, in cahoots with Pop Culture, made Diversity so iconic and sacrosanct that whites feel apologetic if they imagine any story or narrative that is all white and lacking in 'diversity'. So, British TV is now featuring blacks in the roles of white historical figures and penalizes programs that don't feature non-whites. Apparently, British History was deficient because it was too white. PC retrofits or retro-corrects history by Africanizing white heroes. It's like the TV show that has a Negro as Lancelot in the new telling of the Arthurian tale, which is also a means to promote Afro-colonization of white wombs and cuck-mindset among white males reduced to the submissive status of 'white boys'.
History is a story of human biology.
Military history is study of human biological aggression.
Economics is story of human biological drive for territory and property.
Literature is human biological use of signs and words as weapons.
They are all about biology.
At their roots, all of human behavior are analogous to what happens among germs, animals, and plants.
In the end, all our science and technology are nothing more than a beehive made by bees, their Death Star(of STAR WARS).
Human intellect, science, and technology allow people to do amazing things, but, as DR. STRANGELOVE shows, the WHY is ultimately biological. In 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, it begins with the bone and develops into a rocket ship, and the driving force is biology.
The question is WHY do we create stuff, make stuff, innovate stuff, and etc? And this stuff we make may seem so amazing that it seems divorced from biology. But we make them to serve biology: the organism’s attraction to great comfort, security, fun, pleasure, power, sex, domination.
Consider immigration. It is explained in highfalutin terms of ‘proposition nation’, ‘huddle masses yearning to breathe free’, etc. But it’s just organisms seeking greener pastures, no different from a herd of deer or bison entering new territory for more grass to chew on.
Whether humans are making bows & arrows or B-52 bombers, it’s the manifestation of the same biological impulses. Everything we do and make is to serve our biological needs.
Suppose we suck out all the hormones of a group of people while leaving their mental faculties(intellect) intact. There will remain the same intellect and same intelligence. But without hormones that fuel instinct, humans are merely apathetic calculating machines. Without instinct and drive, they have no will, agency, and compass to direct their intelligence. Without hormones, there is no sense of 'us and them'. One has no greater feelings for one's own people than for others, even those who aim to hurt one's people. This is why Jews promote apathetic zen-ism among whites to weaken their sense of us-and-them while Jews maintain a strong sense of us-Jews and them-goyim. (But then, even as Jews tell whites not to feel strong feelings about white identity, they insist that whites must passionately favor Jews over Palestinians, Arabs, and Iranians. What a sneaky bunch of lowlifes.)
They actually carried out such an experiment where the hormones of some guy were removed. He just felt numb. He looked around and lacked the will. And everything seemed equally ‘pleasant’ in this emotion-drained state. Everything seemed to be of equal value. Show such a person gold and lead, and they are equally valuable... or equally valueless.
To a person with emotions, gold means power, wealth, and that means success, sex, and good stuff. His hormones drive him to fight for gold. But to a person without emotions, gold is just like anything else. And stuff like power, success, happiness, and etc have no meaning to him since he has no emotions.
If Einstein had no hormones and only intellect, he never would have bothered to discover the laws of the universe. No matter the ability, there would have been no drive, no will, no hunger. He would have been at peace with himself doing nothing. But he had emotions; animal emotions drive man to conquer, and this 'animal' within Einstein drove him to conquer knowledge and unlock the key to the universe and attain the forbidden fruit. And he wanted fame and recognition. So, his life was really about intelligence driven by ape emotions.
Ethno-nationalism and pan-Europeanism need not be opposites. They can be useful partners. One can be locally ethno-national but also unite with others for pan-European interests.
In a way, the most effective way of managing a society is on the ethno-national level. A secure and well-governed nation will get along fine with neighbors. Look how Norway, Sweden, and Finland got along through most of modern history.
It's like the human body. The liver is what it is, heart is what it is, eyes are what they are, and etc. They all have separateness and uniqueness. But they also work together for the good of the whole. For the whole body to work well, each organ must guard and play its unique role.
Excessive ethno-nationalism undermines pan-Europeanism because each nation will only think of 'my people' against other ethno-Europeans.
But excessive pan-Europeanism will also undermine the Eurosphere because mere European-ness, like mere 'whiteness', is too generic and bland to serve as a sole/core identity.
In a way, white power in both US and EU waned and dissipated because of the promotion of pan-identity whereby each people became cut off from their ethnic roots. Without core roots in unique heritages and histories, whites/Europeans sought new identity from pop culture that is all about fads and fashions. Whiteness is like the generic term of 'tree'. But there are different kinds of trees. Different trees can co-exist in the same forest but they must maintain their uniqueness as well. Oak is oak, and birch is birch. If both are merely designated as 'tree', then neither is special nor particularly meaningful. They've become interchangeable.
Imagine if Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Koreans dropped core ethno-identity and just opted for pan-Asianness. It would be rather dull and boring on the ethnic, cultural, and historical level. It'd be like one of those generic 'Asian buffets' that offers dishes from all Asian nations but without particular expertise or flavor.
The fact is each Asian nationality can maintain and defend its core ethno-identity while, at the same time, recognizing what all Asians have in common in terms of interests. Thus, 'narcissism of small differences' can be avoided.
In a way, the Golden Age of European cooperation arose from the ashes of WWII. It led to the rise of homogeneous European nations(like the article 'Us and Them' by Jerry Muller detailed in FOREIGN AFFAIRS), and each nation/people felt secure and safe. Thus, they were more likely to cooperate with neighbors. (It's like a person who feels secure about his home and property is more likely to feel at ease and work in good faith with others. But, if the house is being robbed or on fire, one's main focus is to save his property.) In contrast, the anti-ethno-nationalist USSR and Yugoslavia eventually fell apart, often violently.
Another thing. I think Alt Right(though I prefer the notion of the Left-Right) can be an international movement and not just a white one. By that, I mean Euro-Alt-Right can work with other Alt-Rights around the world for the common goal of universal nationalism and anti-globo-homo imperialism. So, let Arab Alt Right defend the Arab world, let Asian Alt Right defend Asia, and let Western Alt Right defend the Eurosphere.
The message that the Western Alt Right can send to non-whites is that the Alt Right Movement respects all expressions of national sovereignty around the world. In contrast, globalism seeks to undermine not only Western national sovereignty but national independence, cultural autonomy, and territorial integrity of all peoples. Indeed, look what globalism did to Libya and Syria by turning them into Open Borders Hellholes of endless strife and terrorism. Globalism seeks to Palestinianize all non-Jews. Palestinians used to be masters of Palestine. Now, they are a people without a home. The ONLY nationalism that globalism hypocritically respects is that of Israel. It goes to show who really controls globalism whose logic is: 'Nationalism for Jews in Israel, Imperialist domination for Jews around the world, and nothing for non-Jews except servitude to Jews and their Homo Allies.'
So, even though Alt Right in the West is a white movement and must be, it can inspire similar identitarian movements all over the world. Alt Right must send a message that what globalism does to the West today, it will do to rest of the world. It already happened in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Open borders were imposed on them through invasions and the Zionist-controlled US funding of Jihadis who poured across national borders to foment wars and chaos.
Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right. It goes to show the Right was sounder on fundamental matters of power and politics. Nevertheless, the 'left' gave the themes of identity and 'intersectionality' its own perverse twist, rendering them even more problematic and useless for the preservation of stable socio-political systems.
There was a time when the Left used to denounce the politics of identity as tribal, atavistic, reactionary, particularist, and xenophobic. The Left urged all of mankind to forgo their cultural identities and tribal-ethnic-national affinities and become part of Universal Man. For Marxists, this meant the brotherhood of workers around the world. It didn't necessarily mean dissolution of borders, but it meant people around the world would formulate their core interests on the basis of class than race, ethnicity, or nation. Marxism = Interests > Identity. So, the working classes of all races, nations, and cultures would form an alliance against all repressive elites regardless of race, culture, and nation.
Among capitalist liberals, the universalist project was essentially elitist(or bourgeois). They called it cosmopolitanism whereby the best educated individuals, being so knowledgeable and sophisticated, would dissolve traditional or tribalist notions of identity. Committed to meritocracy and excellence, these cosmopolitan elites would find value and form companionship based on comparability of skills, talent, and interest than on something so 'crude' as ethnicity, nationhood, and tribalism. In time, with expanding economies and rising educational attainment among the middle classes, the ideal mode of cosmopolitanism would go from elite privilege to mass reality if all worked according to plan. With rising prosperity, expanding leisure, and growing sophistication, cosmopolitan model could define mass consciousness.
But as things turned out, identity(and ethno-cultural inheritance) mattered after all. Communism couldn't stamp out nationalism, cultural consciousness, historical memory, & ethno-solidarity, and, if anything, nationalist tensions flared up even within the socialist camp, as between USSR and Red China. Also between Red China and Vietnam, and then between Vietnam and Cambodia. Also, even within the USSR, communism couldn't eradicate the ethno-national aspirations of various peoples to break free from the Soviet Empire. And despite Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, each Warsaw Pact nation guarded its national identity and sense of history.
And Jewish Leftists who used to preach Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, or Stalinism eventually discovered that neither political ideology nor mere economic interests(usually short-term and ever-shifting) cannot supply the meaning and compass that could be found only with identity-of-inheritance(which is distinct from PC identity-of-grievance). Many reverted to Jewish identity(with proven resilience and richness) and focused on Jewish Power or Zionism.
Also, certain non-white groups in the US became troubled by the notion of assimilation. When White America was racially conscious and exclusionary toward non-whites, the effective strategy among Jews and non-whites was to weaken white sense of identity and racial uniqueness. After all, whites held most of the power and wealth. White America was Main America back then. So, in order for Jews and non-whites to gain access to more wealth and power, White America had to be persuaded that Americanism required ALL peoples, whites and non-whites, to forgo their tribal or racial identities and melt into a single pot of new-found unity. Many whites resisted this, but many whites accepted it(not least because the melding of various white ethnics into a Common Americanism had succeeded more or less in many parts of America). And as time wore on, White America opted for the melting-pot pact where all peoples would try to be generic 'Americans'. This would apply to whites, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and immigrants. But once this new paradigm was achieved, certain non-white groups and Jews began to fret about the overall impact of such 'melting' assimilation. After all, if US is dominated by whites, assimilation into the melting pot means non-whites and Jews forgoing their own identities & roots and succumbing to dominant whiteness. They would become ersatz-whites(meaning White Christians). So, the very people on the Left(dominated by Jews) who’d once pressured White America to let go of its racial identity and commit to a molten-identity of ‘Americanism' became the ones who found new value in the Politics of Identity. Thus arose Multi-Culturalism. Even though whites were pressured and expected to surrender their identity(mocked as 'bland' and 'white-bread'), non-whites and Jews were encouraged to defend and radicalize their own (apparently more authentic)identities against whiteness.
This was also useful in promoting 'white guilt', an effective weapon for Jewish Power in paralyzing white power and unity of purpose. Melting Pot ideal may have offended white race-ists, but it still favored White-ness uber alles since whites comprised the solid majority of Americans well into the 1980s. So, if assimilation were the magic formula for America, it meant non-whites and Jews should become more like whites and conform to white culture & standards. This might have worked if the only minorities in the US were Asians and Mexicans, as both groups generally tend to follow, obey, and imitate. But blacks came to see white people as 'weak' and 'wussy'. Black men came to look down on 'slow fa**oty-ass white boys' and didn't want to surrender their macho Negro manhood by becoming 'honky-ass white'. Also, even if blacks had wanted to assimilate to whiteness, the difference between whiteness and blackness was too stark to ignore.
If they’d so wished, Jews could have assimilated into whiteness like swarthy Southern Italians and Turkmen-looking Greeks managed to. And Jews might have done just that if not for their exclusive sense of identity/superiority and higher IQ. Being smarter and pushy, Jews felt that they could and should become the ruling elites of America. To become such, they couldn't assimilate into whiteness(at least not 100%) and become mere imitation-wasps(as some White Christian Conservatives wished them to be). Also, the wily Jewish personality found whiteness too stiff and stuffy. Once Jews reached the top, they figured it should be the whites(and others) who should try to assimilate to the Jewish Way(mainly be sucking up to Jewish Power). After all, the object of assimilation has primacy over subject of assimilation. The subject assimilates into the object, so the object swallows the subject. It’s like the food assimilates into the eater. Jews prefer to digest others into the Jewish Way than have Jewishness be digested into gentile-ness. (Assimilating into the Jewish Way isn't the same thing as goyim-becoming-Jewish. Rather, it means goyim regarding Jewish Power and Jewish 'values' to be the dominant New Normal of America and the West. For example, Homomania as replacement for Christianity.) Granted, some goyim literally do assimilate into Jewishness because they are so in awe of Jewish Power. We see this in Chelsea Clinton, Ivanka Trump, and Amy Chua. They assimilated into Jewishness, and their kids are raised as Jewish. Thus, the Best and the Brightest(and/or prettiest) among the goyim offer their wombs to Jews, and the kids of high IQ Jews and high IQ goyim are raised as Jews and serve Jewish Power.
So, the logic of the Jewish Left came full circle. The very people who'd been denouncing the politics of identity as 'reactionary' came to promote identity as 'progressive'. But of course, there is one danger to promoting identity politics. It can spawn the politics of white nationalism. After all, if identity is good enough for non-whites, why not for whites as well? This logic is partly behind the emergence of the Alt Right.
Problematically, multiculturalism among most non-whites is an identity-of-against, not an identity-of-for. It is an identity-of-grievance than an identity-of-inheritance(and reverence). Multiculturalism in the West does not encourage non-whites to grow closer to their own race, heritage, history, culture, and territory(native homeland). Indeed, if multiculturalists really believe that preservation of identity and heritage are so important, they should be anti-immigration since immigrant-invaders usually lose a sense of who they are and whence they came. Greeks in America know very little about Greece. Japanese in Brazil know and care little about Japan. Multi-culturalism does little to foster preservation of identity and heritage. If anything, it urges non-whites to abandon their own homeland nations/folks/cultures and head to White/Western nations and surrender to Hollywood culture of degeneracy, PC dementia, Homomania, and feminism. Multiculturalism is a sleight-of-hand trick. It fools non-whites in the West into believing they are empowered by the Ideology of Diversity. But surely, living in a world of Diversity makes it more difficult for any group to preserve its identity, heritage, and culture; obviously it's more difficult for a Burmese or Syrian to maintain his identity and culture in the US or Canada than in his own home nation. Homogeneity means there are others who share in your identity & culture and cooperate with you in maintaining the history and heritage of your people. Diversity means your people/culture constitute just another minority that is surrounded by other groups with different identities and cultures. Diversity undermines every culture as every group will lack a solid support system of like-minded and like-cultured national kinfolk. Surely, it's more difficult to secure Irishness if an Irish group is surrounded by many other groups who aren't Irish. There must be a constant struggle to prevent members of the group from joining and interbreeding with other groups. Also, Diversity means all groups must be united by something generic, bland, and/or superficial that has easy but shallow appeal to all groups. As America grows more Diverse, the sniffing-glue that holds America together is Pop Culture and Food. In contrast, in a Irish nation full of Irish people, you don't even have to make an effort to preserve Irishness since it's all around, organic and rooted.
Anyway, to make things even worse in the Current West, the Cult of Diversity is interwoven with Homomania, feminism, and other Western pathologies. The lie of Multi-Culturalism is that it appreciates and defends non-white cultures from Western Hegemony. Its real agenda is to associate non-white cultures with PC grievances and degeneracy. So, when Multiculturalists pretend to embrace Muslims, they don't really care about Islam per se. And they care less about helping Muslim-Americans maintain their Islamic ways and cultural values. Rather, they make a show of embracing Muslims to associate Islam with Diversity laced with homomania, feminism, and decadence. Multiculturalists who denounce 'Islamophobia' are not trying to uphold Islamic values or spread Sharia in the West. They are trying to inject homomania and feminism into the Way of Islam. They've done just that with Christianity already. Especially Mainline churches are now into Queertianity.
Multiculturalism is not an identity-of-for but an identity-of-against. Under its influence, non-whites have little idea what they are and what they are for. For example, Asian multiculturalists are not encouraged to feel closer to Asian identity, heritage, culture, and territory. If anything, they are urged to cut themselves off from their own roots in their homelands and resettle in the West. So, what is their identity under Multiculturalism? It is merely the identity of pretend-victimhood. They are to identify as 'victims' of 'white racism' and 'white privilege'. Their identity is AGAINST whiteness rather than FOR Asian-ness. Since their main identity is defined in terms of being AGAINST certain peoples/cultures, they not only turn anti-white but eventually anti-Asian as well because Asian nations are still FOR something: Asian homeland, Asian ethnicity, Asian culture, Asian history. The AGAINST mentality finds meaning only in attacking and diminishing anything that is FOR. Against-ism is a habit of mind that comes to loathe any form of For-ism.
And this is the gambit that the West is playing with Muslims. This embrace of Muslims by the Multi-Culti 'left' seems contradictory. After all, Muslims have ways, values, and manners that are so at odds with Western decadence, degeneracy, and inversion of values. So, why would the West be friendly with people who have no use for feminists and homo lunatics? The hope is that, over time, the Muslims will also develop an identity or mental habit that is more AGAINST than FOR. Once that happens, these against-ist Muslims(whose highest value is homomania, feminism, and rap culture) will wage war on for-ist Muslims who still live by the Faith.
The basis for the current alliance between Jews and Muslims, two groups who really hate each other in the Middle East and even in the West(due to reverberations of Middle East politics), is untenable in the long run because ‘leftist’ politics of identity is too thin and shallow for genuine bonding. Against-ism can never serve as strong glue for anything.
Jews and Muslims hate one another, but they are both AGAINST white nationalism as embodied by Donald Trump(even though he has been exposed as just another toady of Zionists). It is useful for Jews to portray Trump-as-Hitler even as Trump grovels before Jews. Jews and Muslims have particular reasons for being anti-white-nationalist. Jews want to keep their supremacist control in the West and fear white identity politics as a potential challenge to their power and privilege. Muslims want entry into the West for better material lives, and they fear white nationalism as an obstacle for this opportunity. Therefore, Trump-as-Islamophobe meme is a boon to Jews. It provides reprieve from the Jewish-Muslim tensions in the West. Under Obama, when mass-immigration faced no obstacles, there was the rise of the BDS movement. Muslims and Arab-Americans joined with others to condemn Israel and Zionism. But now that Muslims’ main concern is to ensure continued Muslim immigration-invasion to the West, they are willing to shush up, at least for now, about Israel-Palestinian problems and collaborate with Zionists against Trump.
Anyway, even though the 'left' stole the Politics of Identity from the Modern Right, its formulation remains shallow since it is essentially an identity-of-against or identity-of-grievance. An identity defined AGAINST whites has no value without the bogeyman of White Evil. Indeed, this is the pathological crisis of the Left in a nutshell. Essentially defined in terms of AGAINST(whatever evil of the current year), it has no meaning unless there is another war to wage against something.
In contrast, the identity-of-for or identity-of-inheritance(of history and heritage) has great value even without enemies or dragons to slay. A true Greek patriot is happy to be a person of Greek ancestry and heritage regardless of whether there are or aren't enemies. He'd be a proud Greek regardless of Victim Politics. His Greekness has value apart from Hurt Feelings.
In contrast, an identity-of-against or identity-of-grievance feels empty and meaningless unless it’s pitted against something and whines endlessly about victimization. Multiculturalism offers shallow identities to all its adherents because it doesn't encourage non-whites to grow meaningfully closer to their own race, culture, and heritage. (But then, if non-whites did just that, they would turn genuinely tribal and resist serving a mega-coalition of various tribes manipulated by Jewish elites against whites.) Rather, it tells them to define their identity mainly in terms of 'victimhood' under whites. So, without the Evil Whitey to hate and blame, their identity has no meaning. Leftists and Multi-cultists suffer from a kind of 'thunderlust'. They must thunder and rail at something to feel justified. Their identity has no inner calm or innate meaning. It's about constant complaint and whining about something or someone else. It is a vanity of feeling a**holier-than-thou.
Given the anti-white vitriol of PC, why are so many white people(ranging from SJW harpies to cucky-wuck GOP Constitutionalists) on-board with the lunacy? Because white people have adopted a kind of negative-identity and fetish-for-exoticism. Given human nature, even guilt soon turns into pride, and so, it's not surprising that 'white guilt' morphed into a new twisted kind of white pride. Since whites are no longer allowed to feel pride in white identity, they seek neo-pride in White Guilt, just like Christian obsession with Sin became just another form of pride, that of sanctimony and holier-than-thou shtick. Christians took pride in their displays of atonement, and white proggies and Cuckservatives practice neo-white-pride in the form of the Great White Atonement. They indulge in Good White Pride by loudly beating their chests and bashing the 'racist' Pride of Baddy Bad Whites. Also, so many whites are now so bored with their own history and culture that they are into exoticist fetish for other cultures(and 'genders').
I imagine the Ethiopian eunuch as a delightfully androgynous soul – dark of skin, flamboyant, dressed in bright silks, bejeweled, his lips colored and his eyes lined with kohl. He is sitting under a parasol in a large chariot, and around him are mounted soldiers and attendants. A wagon carries tents and food so that he can camp in luxury on the journey home.
Even so, politics of identity, even when shallowly defined, may lead to politics of identity-of-depth. Some might start digging deeper into their own identities and find something richer and far more meaningful than constant griping about Evil Whitey. (This is exactly what happened to some Jewish leftists. Initially, these secular Jews who’d rejected Jewish identity adopted the Jewish identity of victimhood, especially in relation to the Shoah. Under this limited formulation, Jewishness had meaning AGAINST the anti-Semites and Nazis. But over time, some of these Jews rediscovered value in Jewishness that went deeper than the ever-shifting winds of politics and recent history.)
Precisely because even shallow-identity can lead to deeper-identity, Jewish Power decided to unleash Homomania especially on the white community. If politics of identity can lead to the rise of white identity politics as well, what better way to muck it up by making homo-identity the holy identity among whites? Indeed, despite the burden of 'white guilt', whites have been craving for some kind of tribal expression. But by rules of PC, whiteness is too tainted for any kind of pride or power. So, whites were offered the outlet of Zionism as the Other Americanism(or the Outpost of Western Civilization), and many white Christians channeled all their frustrated tribal-racial energies into rooting for Israel. But that was never going to be enough for all whites, especially the secular ones. So, whites were bombarded with homomania as supposedly the fullest flowering of whiteness. Notice how white homos are among the most celebrated, praised, and admired in the media. So, the subconscious message became whiteness-is-redeemed-through-Anno-Sodomini. Is it any wonder that so many whites flocked to homomania? It is one area where whites are allowed to be dominant without apology. Otherwise, 'too many whites' or 'white power' is suspect as being tainted with 'white privilege'. But white homos are blessed for their homo-ness. So, a gathering of white homos and celebration of white homos are a kind of whiteness that has been washed of 'white guilt'. This is the paradox of White Morality in the Current Year. White guilt feelings are most effectively washed with shameful white acts(of homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting).
The 'left' stole not only the politics of identity from the Modern Right. It also stole the politics of ‘intersectionality’ from fascism. What is 'intersectionality' but a leftist twist on fascist theory of corporatism? To better understand this, consider the contrasting strategies of the radical left and modern right in the interwar years following WWI.
The radical left gave us Marxism/Communism. It sought to stamp out all contradictions and create a mono-ideological system. Everything in the radical leftist state had to conform to Marxist principles and communist methods. Since communism is atheist, religions had to be stamped out. Since communism is for the proles against the bourgeoisie, the business class had to be wiped out. Since communism is revolutionary and anti-reactionary, the Old had to be smashed and destroyed. Radical leftism was mono-logical. It had one idea, and everything had to submit to that idea. Anything that didn't submit had to be destroyed or banished. There was little or no room for compromise, cooperation, or sharing of power. All power and control had to be in hands of the radical left.
In contrast, fascism strove for an 'intersectionality' among the various forces of society. Mussolini was an atheist(and used to be a militant one as a syndicalist-socialist), but as a fascist, he came to value the Catholic Church for its role in Italian history and society. So, unlike Bolsheviks who waged ruthless war on the Russian Orthodox Church, the Italian Fascists came to an understanding with the Church. The result was the Lateran Pact. Also, Fascists acknowledged that economics isn't just about the righteousness of a single class. There was and always will be a class of workers. And there was and always will be a class of businessmen and managers. So, the sensible thing was not to destroy the business class or enslave the working class. The solution was to arrive at an understanding among the classes so that all would fulfill their necessary roles in society. Also, even though Italian Fascists promoted science and technology(and modernity), they also came to see value in tradition, heritage, and legacy. Therefore, it wasn’t inevitable for the forces of tradition and forces of modernity to be in a state of constant warfare where compromise was impossible. Fascism could arrive at ways in which tradition and modernity would not only tolerate one another but support one another.
The reason why there was far less violence and terror in Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany than in most communist nations was because they opted for 'intersectionality' among various classes, between secular institutions and the church, between the traditional sources of power/prestige and new forces in ascendance in politics & culture. (Of course, Hitler threw it all away and created hell on earth when he opted for inter-European imperialism and violated the nationalist principles of neighboring nations, but that is another story.) In contrast, communist nations were far drabber, drearier, and marked by dread since their mono-logical systems were Procrustean in bending and twisting everything into a single mold.
So, the current 'leftist' fad about 'intersectionality' was really lifted from the Modern Right. But when used by the 'left', it can only be a fad and fashion because 'leftist' machinations of 'intersectionalities' are almost always utterly shallow, cynical, conditional, opportunistic, flimsy, and superficial.
Fascism searched for 'intersectional' potentialities of depth and substance. For 'intersectionality' to be effective and stable, the common thread woven through the various forces has to be real and meaningful. So, if Italian bourgeoisie, Italian proletariat, Italian peasants, Italian artists, Italian Catholics, Italian secularists, Italian military-men, Italian traditionalists, Italian modernists, Italian scientists, Italian writers, and etc. all have their differences and contradictions among one another, what is the common thread that holds all of them together? Italian-ness! However their respective views or values may differ from one another, they could at least come to an understanding on the basis that what they have in common, Italian-ness, is far more important than what they have in contrast. As fellow Italians with shared history and heritage on the same territory, they have common interest in making their nation better, richer, more powerful, more productive, and more creative. And with this understanding, they could be more forgiving of other Italians with whom they disagree. Also, each could do its own thing to contribute to the larger improvement of Italy with the knowledge that all other sectors are also committed to serving Italy. Italian patriotism can bring together an Italian capitalist and Italian socialist. Italian capitalist may be good at business, and an Italian socialist may believe in more government involvement. But if both are committed to the betterment of Italy, both can come to respect one another and contribute in their own way. Even if their interests sometimes run counter to each other, the differences could be resolved when they look at the bigger picture of "Is it good for Italy?"
Because the locus of fascism was ethnicity, history, heritage, and territory, its brand of 'intersectionality' was sound and stable(as long as Italy didn't enter into some mad imperialist venture and reap the wrath of other nations far more powerful, which is exactly what happened when Mussolini made a foolish pact with pathological Hitler). There is no better ‘intersectionality’ than nationalism. It is the shared sense of blood, soil, and memory that allows various individuals and groups to cooperate and work together despite divergences in ideas(capitalist or socialist), beliefs(religious or secular), or professions(military men or civilian).
Nationalism as ‘intersectionality’ has real gravitas. It is the roots that hold all the other parts of the tree together.
In contrast, the 'intersectionality' of the current 'left' is ludicrous. Fascist 'intersectionality' is about meeting of the roots in the realm of depth. But, 'leftist intersectionality' is about the scratching of branches of different trees at the whims of winds.
Whatever their differences, an Italian Catholic and an Italian atheist has something real in common in their shared ethnicity and history. Indeed, what they have in common is more powerful than whatever happens to be in their heads.
In contrast, consider the 'intersectionality' among Zionists, Muslims, homos, feminists, blacks, and immigrants. They have NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE in common. Zionists and Muslims hate one another and find common ‘ground’ only in their fear of white nationalism(as challenge to Jewish supremacist power or hindrance to Muslim immigration-invasion to the West). Elite feminists and blacks have nothing in common except their scapegoating of 'white men' as the source of all problems. They may pretend to have something in common and compelling in their commitment to equality and diversity, but more diversity only leads to more inequality -- just take a look at California -- , and furthermore, a term like 'equality' is too vague to mean anything definitive. Notice every group invokes 'equality' to mean something different, usually, "We want bigger share of the pie". For blacks, 'equality' means "We ain't got enough, honkey." For Jews, it means, "We deserve everything we got, even though we have much more than other groups." And libertarians and conservatives invoke ‘equality’ to mean what they want it to mean. They mean 'equality of opportunity'.
It is amusing that the 'left' bleats on and on about the evils of fascism, but it stole ideas from the Modern Right because the 'left' has turned out to be so vacuous and discredited in all its formulations and conceits.
Neo-Fascism is the best intersectionality between the Real Right and the True Left. Left-Rightism must be the Way of the Future.
Whether a society is theocratic or ideocratic(defined by secular ideology), certain ideas, images, idols, and/or icons are held up as holy, sacred, divine, and/or irreproachable. It goes beyond factual value or utilitarian worth. It is what makes the society feel justified, redemptive, inspired, uplifted, and/or righteous(and maybe better than other societies).
Sacramentalism has value insofar as it provides emotional or spiritual(or quasi-spiritual) meaning(and even uplift) to the people of that culture. But it comes with a certain danger: When something is held up as sacred or holy, it becomes taboo to say or do anything that offends the official sanctimony. Now, if what is upheld as holy or sacred is the absolute truth, it may cause little harm to prevent views or actions that threaten to demean that truth. For example, if people are forced to accept 2 + 2 = 4 as truth and forbidden to claim that 2 + 2 = 5, could it really do much harm?
But few things in life can be said to constitute the absolute truth. Even hard sciences undergo paradigm shifts. Social sciences and social values(being more heavily influenced by societal norms, political power, and ideological biases) are suspect as final arbiters of truth. So, in order for there to be advancement in our understanding of humanity, we need a spirit, culture, and system of free inquiry and open exchange of ideas. Ideas and views that challenge the Official Truth may or may not have lasting value, but unless there is freedom to challenge the Official Dogma, what we have is Sacramentalism as the dominant cultural authority. And this is no less a problem in modern secular societies as in medievalist theocratic ones. Consider the two stories:
The first story happened in Saudi Arabia, a medievalist theocratic state. The second story happened in UK, a modern secular republic(or democracy). No two societies couldn't be more different. And yet, there is an eerie similarity to the two stories. What are they? They are both the result of Sacramentalism.
In Saudi Arabia, Islamic Law is sacred. For non-Muslim observers, the death of Saudi girls in the fire in the above-linked story sounds horrible and totally unjustified, and I would concur. But we don't share in those sacramental Islamic values. For ultra-devout Muslims for whom their religious laws aren't merely the rules of man but the divine decrees of God, what is Holy is more precious than mere mortal lives. I'm sure even hardcore Muslims were saddened by the deaths of those girls in the fire, BUT more sacred to them was the preservation of Islamic Laws and Tradition.
In the case of UK, there is the neo-religion or neoligion of Diversity and 'White Guilt'. Generations have been drummed with the PC mantra that 'diversity is our strength' or DIOS(the new deus of the West). It is not to be disputed. To disagree or dissent from Diversity-as-Sacred is to be a bad evil person, a 'racist', gasp gasp. It is an article of faith to worship Diversity. Also, white Britons have been weaned on 'white guilt' that was supposedly inherited from crimes of British Imperialism. (But then, there is also an element of closeted-white-pride among some Britons insofar as non-white masses seem to prefer white UK over their own homelands ruled by their own kind. Thus, UK is remade into a mini-facsimile of the Old Imperialism for those who secretly hark back to the Age of Empire: UK as theme park of Britannia ruling over diverse peoples. Also, even though 'white guilt' is supposed to browbeat the white masses into timid obeisance, it has also become an opportune article of neo-haute faith among the snotty elites who turn up their noses at the hoi polloi who ask, like Oliver Twist, "Can we have a little less invasion?" HOW DARE YOU ASK FOR SUCH, YOU LOWLY RACIST!!)
Since Diversity and 'white guilt' are sacrosanct in the new UK, any fact or revelation that exposes PC assumptions as falsehoods(or half-truths at best) must be suppressed, indeed denounced as demonic. And those who dare to speak inconvenient truths must be castigated as heretics.
The result was silence from law officials who knew all-too-well what was happening in Rotherham. But they remained mum out of fear of being condemned or excommunicated as 'racists' if they'd bothered to sound the alarm about those white girls being abused by Muslim sex traders and rapists.
Likewise in the US, many military men who suspected something wrong about Nidal Hassan(the Fort Hood shooter) kept silent lest they be suspected of desecrating the magic spirit of Diversity(as our 'greatest strength'). So, the shooting that could have been prevented based on troubling signs in Hassan's behavior was allowed to happen.
Also, one of the airport security officials said he sensed something strange about Ansar-Al-Fatah on 9/11, but he didn't say or do anything since it went against the spirit of 'Diversity' as America's greatest strength. And then, consider all the time and energy wasted in the US by having everyone(even old white ladies) inspected at airports when young Muslim men are prime suspects as terrorists. All that wasted energy and resources were also due to the sacramentalism of PC.
Due to the Sacramental place that blacks occupy in the US narrative stemming from the Civil Rights Era, it's nearly impossible to speak honestly about the problems of race, especially as they pertain to crime and violence. The Holy Narrative would have us believe that these saintly and wonderful blacks suffered so nobly as slaves. And blacks were completely in the right and white segregationists were completely in the wrong during the Civil Rights Era. So, blacks are tragically holy, whereas whites must atone for their great 'sin'. Now, there was slavery and oppression of blacks in American History. And there were morally compelling themes in the Civil Rights Movement. But the real history is far more complicated than the Ken-Burnsy fairy-tale we've been getting forever.
True, blacks had to labor as slaves, but slavery was hardly unique in the world. Also, the only reason why many black slaves seemed relatively docile and nice(in Uncle Tom-ish ways) was out of the fear of the white man's whip and gun. It had nothing to do with the innate nature of the blacks, which is more aggressive and brutish than the natures of other races.
And segregationists were partly justified in their fear of the Negro as the black man is bigger, more muscular, stronger, tougher, and more aggressive than the white man. And the ensuing racial mayhem committed by blacks all over the US(and not just against whites) attests to the problems of real differences among the races.
So, even though there are compelling arguments in favor of the Black Narrative, the counter-narratives are valid in their own way. There is no single truth that explains everything. No social or historical truth is so sacrosanct that nullifies all other narratives. (It's like the Narrative of Jews-as-killers-of-Christ-as-Son-of-God is just one side of the story. For one thing, Jews don't believe in the Divinity of Jesus, so even if they were to claim responsibility for His death, they wouldn't feel that they killed the Son of God or the Messiah. Jews are not tainted for all time because of what they did to Jesus nor are they holy for all time because of Shoah.) But PC insists that we treat the Black Narrative as holy, the only acceptable one. As our society worships the Magic Negro, MLK cult, and Civil Rights Movement as a battle between angels and demons, we can't have a honest discussion of race and racial problems. The narrative keeps reeling back to some old movie with Gregory Peck defending an innocent Negro falsely accused. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is like the GROUNDHOG DAY of the American Narrative. No matter what Negroes do, we are back to ground zero of Innocent Saintly Negro vs all those wicked white 'racist' bigots. That serves as the template of our discussion of race even after blacks rob, rape, riot, and rampage.
As for global affairs, the most dangerous 'Sacramentality' of America is the Icon of the Holy Jew. Because of the Holocaust-as-neo-religion, we are supposed to worship Jews. We are not supposed to say anything critical of Jewish Power lest it be 'antisemitic' which may soon degenerate into 'Nazism', thus paving the way for new holocausts.
Now, if Jews were powerless or just regular folks in the US, such protection of Jewish sensitivities couldn't do much harm. But Jews are the most powerful people in the US, the most powerful nation in the world. Worse, Jewish control of foreign policy led to Wars for Israel that decimated innumerable people in the Middle East: Mostly Muslims but lots of Arab Christians too. Also, Jewish bitterness at Russian sovereignty(as barrier to total Zionist takeover) led to the 'new cold war' that may even turn hot.
It's interesting that Conservatives express outrage at Saudi Arabia for sacrificing 15 girls to defend Islamic sacraments, but these Conservatives seem unaware that their near-worship of Jewish Power has made them turn a blind eye to how megalomaniacal Jewish Power has steered US foreign policy toward wrecking entire nations, killing 100,000s of people, and uprooting millions into refugee status. 15 dead Saudi girls, that's an outrage. But 100,000s of dead Muslims and Arabs and all those US soldiers who returned in body bags or with mangled limbs? Who cares?
As Jesus said, "Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her."
Americans, who in their worship of Holy Jews, hurl bombs all over the world and destroy entire nations, should be the last ones to be casting blame on others for sacrificing lives for an idea or icon.
And then, there is the problem of Millennials and the Cancerous Bunghole, aka the Millennial Bunghole Apocalypse. How did this happen?
We know why. Due to the rise of Homomania -- the worship of homos as holy-schmoly -- and promotion of kinkiness(in our degenerate culture), society has been reluctant to teach kids about the dangers of fecal penetration, aka 'anal sex'(which really should be called 'poopjob' since it's like a blowjob or handjob except that the penis is rubbed against the muscles of the poopchute). With all the homotion(homo promotion) and kinkery, millennials have been raised to worship homos & trannies as the secular saints of America and to 'experiment' in sexual adventurism. Actually, Homomania is really a neoligion(or neo-religion) and even threatens to take over churches and become the new (satanic)christianity. According to Anno Sodomini of gaytianity, Jesus died on the Cross to bestow blessing on men buggering one another or cutting off their puds and nuts to get fake poons.
Since homos are holy, we can't say anything that might offend their sensibilities. So, the younger generation was not informed of how fecal penetration or poopjobs increase the chance of anal cancer by 17 times. Also, insofar as pornography promotes homosexuality and interracialism among young ones, it too was allowed to spread all over the internet, and the result is young girls grew up with the idea that taking it up the butt is part of the 'new normal' in sexual behavior. The result is many more cancerous bungholes, some of which will lead to deaths.
But there is no concerted effort to inform young people of the dangers of fecal penetration because homos are sacrosanct(and kinkery is so 'cool'). But then, this is a country that still cannot face up to the fact that the MAIN REASON why all those homos dropped dead like flies in the 80s and 90s was because they were buggering one another all over the place in wild abandon. But homos, like Jews and blacks, are holy according to PC, so they must never be blamed for anything. Just blame it on "Reagan's Indifference".
So, all those who feel smugly superior to Saudis who allowed 15 girls to burn to death in the fire should really look in the mirror. They say nothing in face of the Millennial Bunghole Apocalypse.
It’s been oft-remarked that humans are naturally spiritual, religious, or magic-minded. Even people who know astronomy is a real science while astrology is superstition would rather dabble with the latter. It’s not only because real science is far more difficult and daunting than fanciful assumptions about how stars affect our fates. After all, there is much that is fantastic that doesn’t appeal to most people, at least not in any deep way. Kids may get into dungeons-and-dragons video-games but don’t much care about them after ‘game over’. Also, kids eventually grow out of Santa Claus myth about a fat old man in a flying sleigh who distributes gifts to all the good boys and girls around the world. While many people are drawn to the fantastic as means of escapism, they don’t seek nor find much meaning or depth in that stuff. So, when we say that humans are naturally ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious’, we don’t simply mean that they are drawn to outlandish fantasties. Rather, we mean people need to believe in the sacred or to experience holiness in certain figures and fables. Without this element in their lives, they feel empty and meaningless.
And by considering this aspect of human nature, we may better understand the Prog Paradox of the Cynic/Sinner Complex. This phenomenon especially applies to white(non-Jewish) progs. Jews and certain non-whites, especially blacks, are allowed self-worship and auto-sanctimony. If a secular Jew wants to feel holy-schmoly, he merely needs to invoke the Shoah or the Holy Holocaust and feel himself to be a member of the Eternal Victim People. And blacks, being emotionally crude and childlike, can easily be goaded into worshiping themselves as the Sacred Slavery Folks. The Cult of Christian Guilt/Conscience never affected Jewish Culture. Traditionally, Jews could feel guilty toward God or fellow Jews but almost never toward ‘dirty filthy goyim’. If anything, Jewish Culture stressed over and over that God’s laws and Jewish morality mattered only within the Tribe. Jews had no obligation to the rest of humanity that existed to ultimately serve Jews. So, it was permissible for Jews to cheat others IF it was good for the Jews, the Chosen of God.
Granted, not all Jews approved of such contemptuous attitude. Many secular Jews adopted universal Enlightenment principles. Some turned to socialism and world revolution. But in the end, even secular Jews concluded that Jews will always be Jews and the goyim will always be inferior in some ways(especially in intelligence, depth, wisdom, or will-to-power, wit-to-power, and cunning) or superior in other ways infuriating to Jews(whereupon Jews must seek to either destroy this threatening superiority or gain ownership over it): Jews found Aryan features to be superior in beauty, so they gained ownership over it by pornifying white society and reducing white beauty into a mere commodity that no longer belonged to the white race but could be bought and sold by the highest bidder. When white beauty was in noble race-ist mode, it belonged to the white race to maintain the organic unity of white men and white women who'd evolved as a single genetic-phenom for 10,000s of years. But once white society was altered with Jewish anti-race-ism, whiteness was no longer a sacred property of the white race but something to be bought and sold. As Jews gained control of media and entertainment(and vice industries), they turned white beauty into something to be traded like wheat and pork bellies. Today, Jews sell white beauty to black men while white men are reduced a bunch of pathetic cucks.
As for blacks, Jews noticed the Negroids have superior strength; Jewish athletes, even tough ones like Max Baer, were no match for Negro athletes; Sambo could destroy Samson. If a Jew faced off with a Negro, the latter would surely kick the former’s ass. BUT, what if Jews gained control of black bodies by ownership of sports and entertainment media? Thus, black bodies too were commoditized in the meat market controlled by Jews. Even so, there is a holiness attached to black bodies that is not with white bodies. Jews promote books like the one by Ta Nehisi Coates(aka The Nasty Coates) that wax spiritual about the tragedy of black bodies(at the hands of evil whites). So, even as Jews market black bodies as profitable meat in sports, music, dance, and pornography, they also allow for black bodily tragic dimension, especially in relation to North American slave trade. (Jews would rather not have us realize that the biggest slave trade was in Latin America, especially Brazil, and that Jews played a very big role in it.) This way, even as Jews economically exploit black bodies, they can pretend that they sympathize with the Holy Negroes and weep for their suffering under White ‘Racism’.
In contrast, even as White Bodies are also exploited by Jews as sex meat — Jewish men see white girls as ‘shikse whores’, and Jewish women delight in Jewish men and black men abusing & degrading white women because they envy the superior beauty of Aryan women — , they aren’t allowed any tragic dimension(unless they are martyred in confrontation with something like Nazism, as in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN; white bodies gain a bit of holiness only when combating White Evil). All those whites battered, beaten, robbed, raped, and murdered by stronger & more aggressive blacks in the US and South Africa aren’t allowed a moment of grace or sympathy. Jews know what white people are capable of IF THE SAXON IS AWAKENED.
It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon(or English)began to hate.
It was not suddenly bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon(or English) began to hate.
When Jews in the Weimar Period pushed Germans too far, it led to rise of National Socialism and the terrifying war on the Jews. When the Japanese pulled a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the American Saxon finally awoke and killed millions of 'Japs'. When Anglo-Americans heard about the massacre in Alamo, they got riled up and went about smashing the Mexican military and taking huge chunks of land. Jews know that there’s no greater rage than Moral Rage. It is when people feel tragic about themselves or their own kind that they can become most angry and mete out the greatest kind of violence to their enemies. If violence against a people is denied a tragic dimension, it just seems unpleasant and nasty, not necessarily sacrilegious and outrageous. It’s like the destruction of a church seems worse than the destruction of any random building. A church is supposed to be a holy place. A destruction of a great work of art feels far worse than the destruction of some random painting of little value. We think of great works of art as priceless. To destroy them is to destroy something quasi-sacred. And there was a time when white people regarded their own bodies as blessed with holiness. So, the idea of non-whites killing a bunch of whites seemed outrageous to whites. The unholy act of desecration had to be dealt with and corrected. Even if dead white bodies couldn’t be resurrected, white honor had to be restored through vengeance against the destroyers of the white body. When Jews in Weimar Germany abused and exploited so many German people(especially the women) as pieces of meat on the sex market, German men and women said enough is enough. They turned virulently anti-Jewish. And when Japan struck Pearl Harbor in a sneak attack and killed thousands of white people, enraged White America was outraged and felt it had to teach the vicious yellows a lesson. In a way, America’s Pacific War was like a White Riot against the yellow desecration of white. (Likewise, the reason why the Japanese were so traumatized by defeat was they didn’t see their nation as just a political entity but as the sacred land of the gods. Just like Jews needed to de-sacralize white bodies in order to gain control over white souls, the US needed to de-sacralize Japan[and its spiritual relation with the Emperor] into a soulless & plastic economic zone in order to gain control over Japan. Thus, Japan just became one big factory and marketplace, and its women became a bunch of whores for the globo-marketplace.) A people feel moral(and even spiritual)outrage against their enemies when they believe in the holiness of their race and bodies. They see their own people and culture as a Temple than as a mere bazaar. In order for Jews to gain power over whites, they had to de-sacralize white bodies into mere matter and then to 'toxify' it with 'white guilt'; thus, whites feel filth but not faith in their own bodies. Jews went about doing this by associating white beauty with Nazism and ‘racism’/slavery. Jews said National Socialism was an Aesthetic Movement to preserve Aryan Beauty. Thus, any ideology that values white beauty as something holy is evil. (Ironically, globalists value blackness above other racial traits for aesthetic reasons. They are addicted to black muscle, dongs & butts, and voice. A kind of Afro-'Aryanism' informs much of globo-homo cult, even with the bung of Milo.) White beauty may be appreciated but only as a commodity to be bought and sold, especially by Jews, non-white races, and blacks. Jews also re-interpreted American Southern History as one of white men using racial discrimination to preserve white beauty and white womanhood from challenges posed by black men equipped with harder muscles and bigger dongs. So, any white male attempt to keep white women and preserve white beauty was(and is) evil and ‘racist’. White beauty may be white, but it must no longer belong as a sacred property of the white race. It must exist to be bought or taken by other races. White race must become like a Dairy Cow to be milked by the World. It used to be white teats produced milk for white kids. Now, white teats are to be milked by all the world, especially Jews of course who take creme dela creme for themselves: White Elite Power must serve Jewish Globo-Homo interests.
Because whiteness has lost its sacred dimension, it no longer seems tragic for whites to suffer, especially at the hands of non-whites. In the past, when blacks raped white women or killed white men, white folks got together to teach the Nasty Negro a lesson(like the 'Japs' were taught a lesson for Pearl Harbor). How dare the Nasty Negro violate the sacred bodies of white women or white men? But today, PC has instructed countless people that black lives are holy — Black Lives Matter — whereas white lives are just commodities. So, it doesn’t matter how many white lives are robbed, beaten, raped, or murdered by blacks. It doesn't matter that white inmates in prisons are routinely anal-raped by monstrous 'groids'. We must pretend that the mayhem isn’t happening OR that it’s no big deal since it’s happening to lame white people(who probably deserve it). (Consider the attitude of Sarah Jeong, the yellow dog mind-poisoned by the Jews. Just like South Koreans in the past were trained by the US to kill and torture Vietnamese, Korean-American yellow dogs are now trained by Jews to bark and bite at whitey. Jews know yellows are servile dogs that always obey the Top Power.) Indeed, because white bodies no longer have sacred value while black bodies have much sacred value, white women feel that their wicked white bodies have value only when taken by black men and impregnated with black seed; and white boys cuck out to this new racial dynamics because they believe whiteness is just ‘white bread’ and exist to serve the Holy Three: Jews, blacks, and homos; nothing would make these cucky-wuck boys happier than to see the next James Bond be a Negro. (White bodies also gain special pokemon points IF they take homo penises up their bungs: Poopjobs.) Because of the Slavery Narrative — even though slavery was universal, the only worthy victims of the Slavery Narrative are blacks of North America — and Shoah Narrative, black and Jewish bodies are seen as holy and sacred. It’s like Jesus’ body was made especially sacred by the Narrative of the Crucifixion. TV shows like ROOTS & THE HOLOCAUST and movies like AMISTAD & SCHINDLER’S LIST — and all those shows with Wonderful Jews and Magic Negroes — created the impression that No Peoples suffered so nobly, tragically, and beautifully as the Jews and Negroes. For most people, Seeing(TV)-Is-Believing. Jews understand the Psychology of Tragedy and how it relates to the Sense of the Sacred. A people are appalled by desecration of the sacred but don’t much care about destruction of non-sacred things. Why do Hindus react violently to non-Hindus mistreating cows in India? To Hindus, cows possess a certain sacred essence. In MCCABE & MRS. MILLER, even the whores and ne’er-do-wells try to save the church when it’s on fire.
Jews know that a people are most empowered when they see their own kind and their own shared property(especially the homeland territory) as (1) sacred and (2) belonging to themselves. A people are bound to be far more furious and outraged when their own kind is attacked IF they regard themselves as special and united in that specialness. After all, that’s been the bedrock of Jewish Power. Jews regarded themselves as not just another tribe but a special Tribe with the Covenant. The Chosen People. This made them feel holy about themselves. Also, even in exile, Jews regarded the Holy Land as sacred because God gave it to them. Many peoples got beaten and crushed so many times in history, but Jews took their setbacks with greater sense of tragedy because they regarded their bodies as holy and ‘chosen’. Also, while Jews were hardly the only people exiled from their homeland, Jews never forgot it because they maintained the Narrative of how God had given it to them and to them only. If Jews hadn't had such feelings about themselves, they would have been just another Tribe. But because of this auto-sense of sacredness, Jews never forgot their self-chosen destiny in history and the world. Naturally, Jews don’t want non-Jews to think likewise because it will mean competition in the Holiness Sweepstakes. After all, holiness isn’t democratic. In every religion and tradition, some things are holy, most things are not, and some things are marked as wicked. And even among holy things, some things are holier than others. Crucifix is holier than rosary to Catholics. So, if Jews are to be a holy people, non-Jews must be made either less holy, unholy, or downright evil. After all, could the Zionist project have succeeded beyond its wildest dreams IF Palestinians had been made equally holy? If whites in the US and EU saw Palestinians as equally holy as Jews, would they have supported the Nakba pogroms of 1948? Would there be such a deafening silence among most Americans concerning the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza IF they regarded Palestinian lives as just as precious as Jewish lives? Of course not. This is why the Politics of Holiness can never be egalitarian. It must deem certain peoples and narratives as holier than others. White silence about dead Palestinians is similar to white silence about dead whites(especially those killed by blacks[directly] and by Jews[indirectly] — blacks often rob, attack, and murder whites, whereas Jews use Wars for Israel, opioid addiction, gambling, and other vice industries to destroy whites indirectly, like all those American Indians killed indirectly by alcohol). Whites don’t care about Palestinian bodies for the same reason they don’t care about white bodies. In the Jewish-controlled West, white bodies and Palestinian bodies are not holy. They are just bodies. Palestinian bodies are usually associated with ‘terrorism’, and white bodies are usually associated with ‘nazism’, ‘white supremacism’, ‘far right’, and also ‘terrorism’. Even though it’s the Jews who de-sanctified the white body and insult whiteness(just like Jews defamed and destroyed Palestinian bodies), whites worship and serve Jews while hating on Palestinians. Why? Because human nature worships the sacred, even when it attacks your kind; and human nature attacks the ‘unholy’, even when it’s in the same straits as your kind. Imagine a monarchy where the king is deemed divine. You revere the king as special while seeing yourself as merely ordinary. Indeed, while the king possesses autonomy of value — he has value just for being what he is and serving his own needs — , you possess no such and your value only derives from serving the divine king. Now, suppose this king mistreats you. And suppose he mistreats another lowly servant. Shouldn’t you, as a lowly mistreated servant, identify with the other servant who is being exploited and kicked around? You would IF you regarded the king as just another person. You might ask yourself, "Why does that a**hole get to push me around? And that other servant too?" But what if you do regard the king as divine? Then, you’d believe the great king has the right to make demands on you, judge you, and punish you. After all, you exist to serve him. And if the king gets angry at another servant and kicks him around, you naturally side with the king because he is great while the other servant is just another lowly body. Even though you yourself is a lowly servant, you want to prove that you’re the best servant there is and win the approval of the divine king. So, upon seeing the king mistreat another servant, you egg on the king while hurling abuse at the terror-stricken servant. It’s the Politics of Status, especially when the higher-above is regarded as holier(than merely rich and powerful). In our world, people want to climb the ladder and serve someone higher. Still, if one is serving a rich white person, there is no special aura to one’s service to him. It’s just a matter of worker serving the boss. But, if the higher-up is Jewish, there is an added element of holiness. By golly, you’re serving a Holy Jew. Now, we know why it was so delicious for John McCain and other such cucks to be serving Jews. They felt as loyal dogs before their holy masters. As Jews came to be the Holy Holocaust people, brainless cucks like John McCain could easily be manipulated into believing they were doing something especially noble because they were doing whatever it takes to appease the agenda of the Holy Jews, the people of infinite wisdom and tragedy. Then, we know why John McCain felt zero sympathy for Palestinians and other Muslims. (He only felt programmed-selective-sympathy for those Muslims who were willing to collaborate with Zionists to destroy much of the Muslim world. So, if Jews informed John McCain that Jihadi terrorist types in Iraq and Syria were ‘freedom fighters’ on the side of ‘democracy’, he went along because doing so would please Jews, the holy people).
According to the Bible, God often punishes the Jews like He punishes non-Jews. In the Old Testament, the oft-angry God kills lots of Jews and goyim. Given that all humans, Jews and non-Jews, suffered under God, why don’t Jews side with non-Jews against God? Because God is holy. And Jews can gain a measure of holiness of themselves ONLY THROUGH the blessing of God. So, Jews try to appease God and win His approval by presenting themselves as the best servants of God. While Jews fear God, it’s not only a matter of power. After all, power is simply might-is-right. It can be magical but it’s not holy. The holy must be righteous and blessed. And according to Judaism, God isn’t merely powerful but holy and good. So, even if God sometimes bashes Jews, there must be a good reason, and it is the duty of Jews to atone and regain His grace. So, just because God punishes Jews and non-Jews, it doesn’t mean Jews should empathize with non-Jews as the fellow-victims of God. Rather, they should seek to grow closer to God so that He will favor Jews as His favorite servants, the Chosen. Similar kind of logic prevails among the goy cucks of Jews. Due to the Holy Holocaust Narrative, these cucks don’t see Jewish power as merely powerful but as holy. They see Jews as the race of New Messiahs. Supposedly, the Shoah crucified the entire Jewish Race that emerged from the ashes of WWII as virtually the second coming of Jesus. Since Jews are holy, they must be perfect. So, even when Jews do bad things to whites, maybe whites deserve it because they are no longer a holy people.
Indeed, PC has successfully impugned the history of white holiness as ‘racist’ and ‘supremacist’. In the past, when whites did everything possible to defend white lands, preserve white beauty(by keeping white women together with white men and having kids together), promote white pride, and defend white honor, they had to favor their own kind as special and holier than other races and peoples. So, American Indians had to be removed to make way for the white man. And black prowess had to be suppressed as a threat to white manhood because black men are more muscular and have bigger dongs. And whites had to mete out ultra-violence against any people who dared to mess with divine white people. So, if Mexicans dared to massacre the gringos at Alamo, they would be crushed without mercy. If the yellow ‘Japs’ dared to attack the US, Japan would be crushed, and Japanese-Americans would be ‘interned’. And if a bunch of commie Jews sent atomic secrets to Stalin, they would be captured and fried on the electric chair. In order for the white race to be divine, whites had to favor whiteness over non-whiteness.
It was difficult for Jews to gain mastery over white people when whites saw their own kind as most sacred, not least because they, as Christians, felt they were the favored of God, especially as the White West spread the Faith all over the world. Jews didn’t seek equality with whites. Jews sought to take the Divinity-Rights from whites. After all, how could Jewish Power gain supremacy if Jews only sought equality-of-human-value, especially when they were a small minority? How could Jews create Israel IF the world were to regard Zionists and Palestinians equally? The great powers had to favor Zionists over Palestinians, and in order for this to happen, Jews had to be regarded as the Holier People. And it was precisely because Jews had more respect and reverence than Arabs in the Western Mind that Jews were able to pull off the Zionist project by gaining support from great white powers. But that was just a rehearsal for a much bigger project: To gain power over all white folks and all white lands. Since Jews didn’t have the numbers to conquer and take over the white world physically, they had to do it psychologically, or psycho-‘spiritually’. They had to manipulate white minds into regarding Jews as a people as holy as whites. And then, Jews had to make whites believe that Jews are holier than whites because of the Holy Holocaust. And then, Jews had to make whites believe that whiteness isn’t holy but wicked and in need of atonement, mainly by cucking out to holy Jews. And to really humiliate whiteness, Jews had to promote blackness as the other great holiness next to Jews. Whites had to cuck out to Jews and blacks. White elites had to serve Jewish globalist-hegemonists, and white masses had to cheer for black athletes and surrender their women to black men. And then, to finally destroy Christianity once and for all, Jews promoted Homomania as the neo-religion of the West. Jewish Media made homos(and even trannies) another Holy People.
Now, we know why Jews were so obsessed about the field of psychology in the 20th century. A people who can’t be conquered in body can be conquered in mind. And then, the body will follow as it is dictated by the mind. After all, how did Christianity conquer Rome? It’s not like ragtag Christians defeated the Roman Military. No, Christian psycho-‘spiritualists’ had a way of telling stories, spreading symbols, manipulating minds, and winning over souls. Body may be strong, but it obeys the commands of the mind. Jews pulled the same stunt in the 20th century. Even though Jews admired the great feat of Christians(whose early proselytizers were mostly Jewish), they hated the fact that Christianity passed the righteous authority of God over to the gentiles. Thus, even as non-Jews were mentally conquered by Christianity, they became empowered by the authority of God and gained moral power over Jews. As the Gospels say Jews killed Jesus the Son of God, Christian Converts didn’t see Jews as the Holy People of the Book but the stingy Tribe that refused to share God with humanity and even went so far as to kill the Son of God whose mission was to bless all of humanity. For this reason, Jews have always hated Christianity and never gave up their long-term agenda of destroying it for good. And they finally succeeded in the 21st century by elevating Homomania as the neo-religion of the West. Today, an average person in the West finds a homo’s fecal-smeared penis holier(and rainbow-like) than Jesus. If anything, Jews have used homo-pervert-agents to festoon Christian churches with homo colors, as if to suggest that Jesus’ main message to mankind is ‘a homo dick up the anus’ and ‘tranny turning his penis into a fake pussy’ are the main reasons why he sacrificed himself for mankind. Jews are cackling among themselves at how easily the white shmucks and shikses fell for the Jewish shtick with the shekels and schmaltz. And to bring about such transformation, whites had to be addicted to the Dumb Culture of Youthful Impatience and Mindless Hedonism. Those with infantile minds can be manipulated far more easily than those with strong values and deep faith. Infantile clods demand instant-answers, whether it’s the idiot-patriotism of chanting USA USA USA at sporting events or imbecile-deliverance of worshiping Oprah, Obama, or Homos as the new messiahs. So many shallow souls cut off from roots, family, history, & heritage(and addicted to pop culture, drugs, hook-up sex, & celebrity-mania) were bound to be easily manipulated by fiendish Jews who know how to read and manipulate minds.
Now, a certain curtailing of white holiness wasn’t a bad thing. Indeed, few things are as awful as radical self-worship. When a people come to regard themselves too highly, they become blind to the suffering and dehumanization of others. It was wrong for white Americans to take part in the slave trade and use blacks as chattel labor in the South. And there was another side to the ‘Remember the Alamo’. In fact, the US was the aggressor manipulating events to take over the SW territories from lazy and mediocre Mexicans. And the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst exploited the theme of sacred white bodies to ignite a war that Spain did not want. False stories were spread about white American women being stripped naked and abused by swarthy Spanish brutes. Also, so-called American 'liberators' instigated a war in Philippines where things spiraled out of control and unleashed hell on earth. And the US-Japan conflict in the Pacific was really a contest between two forms of self-worship. White Americans though they should rule the Pacific, and the Japanese thought they should. Both sides were too full of themselves to recognize their own hypocrisies and arrogance. Japanese, increasingly into self-worship as the rightful divine rulers of Asia, couldn’t see how much harm they were causing all around. And the US failed to understand its role(along with the UK) in encouraging the rise of an aggressive Japan(mainly to counter Russia). Also, it was rather amusing that the US would be championing China against Japanese aggression when its own attitude toward China had been hostile and contemptuous. If anything, until the embargo, the US had been one of the main enablers of Japanese aggression in Asia, and US culture was filled with stereotypes of the fiendish Chinaman. As long as Japan served as a bulwark against the USSR and checked the rise of China, it had been useful enough to the US & UK. But when Japanese got overly ambitious as the rightful Asian hegemon, tensions increased and led to the Pacific War. But both Japan and White America couldn’t see their own moral flaws because they were so full of self-worship. Japanese arrogance was two-fold. As the holy Yamato race, they were supposedly better than other Asians and fit to rule over them. But as ‘fellow Asians’, they were supposedly the generous brother and comrades of all yellow peoples. This contradiction between ethno-supremacism and pan-Asian-camaraderie was never resolved because the Japanese were too full of themselves. But White America was also blinded by too much power and racial narcissism. According to the US narrative, Pearl Harbor was truly wicked and venal. But in fact, the US had pulled off moral equivalents of Pearl Harbor many times over in Asia(and with Mexico and Latin America). The US war in Philippines was many times worse than Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Also, the US and other imperialist powers had used all kinds of brutal means to pacify Chinese resistance since the 19th century. And the US had aided Japan’s bloody aggression into Asia. But what did it matter as long as the dead bodies belong to the Filipinos or Chinese who weren't deemed sacred? As long as holy white America and divine Japan(as a kind of honorary white nation) had a gentlemen’s agreement to divvy up the Pacific, neither side was bound to be very self-aware of their moral hypocrisies. But the craziest kind of self-worship was that of Nazi Germany(and later that of Jewish globo-homo supremacism). That was radical self-worship gone utterly bonkers. It’s one thing to defend one’s race, territory, and heritage. It’s one thing to love one’s own people and appreciate everything associated with tradition and blood-and-soil. Nazi German self-love didn’t end there. It turned into the most extreme kind of cultish self-worship of one’s race as the superior breed. Just like a person who’s excessively filled with self-regard cannot regard the worth of other individuals, a people into excessive self-worship cannot appreciate other peoples. It was Racial Diva-ism. And this most dark side of Nazi Germany revealed itself in its imperialist wars and genocidal massacres. Indeed, what was truly frightening about the Shoah was it went far beyond revenge. German feeling of revenge toward Jews was understandable given the Jewish role in Bolshevism and degenerate Weimar Period. But vengeful rage eventually burns out. It’s like Russians felt vengeful rage and carried out horrors in Germany, but eventually the hatred abated. And White America felt vengeful rage toward the ‘Japs’ and went about destroying much of Japan. But once the war ended, the animus gradually subsided. In contrast, Nazi German policy toward Jews went beyond revenge. Radical Nazi German self-worship not only failed to recognize the humanity of Jews but came to identify Jews as the source of all evils against the Aryans. But the Nazi moral argument against Jews didn’t make much sense. What’s the point of condemning Jewish supremacism IF your side is pushing a supremacism of its own? The only sensible moral argument would have been to condemn Jewish supremacism and viciousness while, at the same time, pledging not to engage in your own supremacist projects. But, even as Nazi Germans condemned the Jewish Agenda of World Hegemony and supremacism, their strategy wasn’t all that different. Indeed, the Nazis embodied much of the evils they identified in Jews. They were invasive, imperialist, contemptuous, and exploitative of other peoples. Indeed, the main point of Nazism seemed to be that, whereas Jews had no right to conquer and rule the world, the Germans apparently did. Why? Seemingly because Jews are ugly and Nibelungen-like whereas Germans are tall, handsome, and magnificent. Since Jews are ugly and craven, they can only take over the world by fraud and deception whereas the noble and tough Germans can take over the world like great warriors. Alberich vs Seigfried.
Better to be invaded by eagles and wolves than by rats and weasels. But ask the peoples who experienced Nazi conquest in Poland and Russia, and being mauled by wolves and clawed by eagles is hardly more pleasant than being gnawed by rats and bitten by weasels. The National Socialists had a chance, but they blew it because Hitler was pathological and driven by radical racist theories. National Socialists could have denounced Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish bad behavior during Weimar years and offered a sounder alternative to the world. They could have presented themselves as honorable nationalists who oppose communism, finance capitalism, and cultural degeneracy. Regarding Jews, they could have done two things. Expel them or, better yet, forge an alliance with good patriotic German Jews while dispossessing the bad ones who fleeced Germany, spread cultural degeneracy, or promoted communism during the Weimar years. But worse, Germany failed to stick with principles of nationalism and instead lurched into the imperialist project in the very heart of Europe, setting off another political earthquake even more devastating than World War I. But to the very end, pathological Hitler and his cohorts couldn’t understand why they failed. Hitler just blamed the others because he was blinded by worship of the self and the volk. He was too full of himself as the Man of Destiny to see what a reckless degenerate gambler he really turned out to be. His failure obviously couldn’t be blamed on him because he was just so very great. And why should he feel remorse for the Germanic invasions of Slavic lands and the massacres? After all, weren’t the Germanic Aryans the ubermensch, the people most sacred and fit to rule the world? The example of Nazism goes to show the dangers of self-worship when it becomes radical and crazy.
And so, it was not a bad thing for White self-regard to be tempered by criticism from both within and without. And if there was a valuable lesson from the Vietnam War, it was the realization that White America isn’t always right simply because ‘Cowboys should beat the Indians’. Furthermore, if the Pacific War had at least been triggered by real Japanese aggression(and had great emotional support from Americans), White America failed to come up with a compelling reason as to why Americans should really risk life and limb in Vietnam and kill countless 'gooks'. Gulf of Tonkin Incident, a kind of faked mini-Pearl-Harbor to engage American emotions in the war effort, was bogus. As Vietnamese bodies piled up, the American excuse for the war made increasingly less sense. There was something about saving South Vietnam from communism, but if so many people in the South really loathed invasion from the North, why didn’t they take up arms and resist? Why didn’t they support the government that had to be propped up by US forces? Whether North Vietnam and Viet Cong were good or bad, one thing was clear. People in the South didn’t have the will to fight to defend the existing order that could survive only with massive US military presence(that was resented by many Vietnamese patriots). Some white Americans may have supported the war out of feelings of revenge. After all, they saw white Americans dying and coming home in body bags. So, why not go get the ‘gooks’? But even this argument didn’t work. At least, Japan attacked the US. North Vietnam never attacked the US. If anything, the US military was in Vietnam. Also, if the US vs Japan was a simple case of whites vs yellows, the Vietnam War was sold to the American public as noble white Americans defending wonderful yellows from commies. On the one hand, the Vietnam War seemed like a ‘kill the gook’ affair, but it was billed as ‘save the good gook from the bad gook’, which really complicated matters. Anyway, as awful as the whole affair turned out to be, one of the positive outcomes of the war was the awareness that, in certain world affairs, ethical issues are far more complicated than ‘Cowboys and Indians’. Vietnam War couldn’t be explained by John Wayne’s GREEN BERETS.
But the Vietnam War proved to be morally instructive for the Left as well. So many naive idiots on the Left had romanticized the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong as salt-of-the-earth saint-warriors. They were so sure that once the US pulled out, Vietnam would become some kind of socialist paradise. While it’s true that North Vietnamese soldier and Viet Cong were patriots and tough warriors, their communism wasn’t going to be a picnic. So, following the war, just about everything fore-warned by anti-communists came to be realized. Vietnam came under Marxist-Leninist tyranny, and as for Cambodia, its horrors went beyond even the wildest ‘paranoid’ fantasies of the most hardline anti-communists. So, the Vietnam War proved to be a sobering event for both the Right and the Left. The Right realized that it’s stupid to see the world in terms of Good Guys(our side) and Bad Guys(the commies). The world is not always that simple. As for the Left, it ended up with eggs on its face with the Boat People fiasco, reports of gulags in Vietnam, and the horror in Cambodia. In the end, the so-called Vietnam Syndrome was good for both the Right and the Left in the US. It urged caution in militarily engaging in other nations; it also urged against childish idealism that was common on the Left. If the Right erred by thinking Cowboys could fix any problem, the Left erred by thinking the Indians were the Real Good Guys. In the end, the Vietnamese Communists(yellow Indians) proved they could be nasty and brutal, and Cambodian communists proved how utterly crazy a totalitarian system can be.
Given the lessons of Vietnam, one would think the US would have valued the Vietnam Syndrome as necessary medicine for a mature empire that should be cautious(and wiser) with its power around the world. And you’d think the American Left would have grown wiser too. But it didn’t happen that way. Increasingly, the Vietnam Syndrome came to be regarded as a disease and evil curse than medicine and good lesson. Not only were there idiot movies like RAMBO, but, as the Cold War wound down, there were new policy experts saying the US could fight and win all future wars with the assurance of No-More-Vietnams. With the Soviet Union having thrown in the towel, the US as the lone superpower was apparently unstoppable. And supposedly all the lessons had been learned and all the problems fixed. All future wars would be winnable and efficiently executed. Why the sudden war fever? US elite power fell into the hands of Jews and Zionists, and they were hellbent on more Vietnams in the Middle East, except that the US would win all of them handily under the guidance of brilliant globocrats. We all know of the result of these New Vietnams. Hardly what anyone would call successes.
As for the Left, the hope for sobriety and maturity was soon lost. The rise of Political Correctness and Globo-Homo Degeneracy led to the Left allying with mega-Jew-run corporations and the Deep State to push a new kind of radicalism divorced utterly from classic leftist themes and serious thought. Since the Left couldn’t gain power through a Working Class Revolution or Third World Rebellion(and given that Jewish Leftists, the leaders of the movement, got tired of working class dummies and people-of-color idiots while becoming addicted to massive rise in Jewish privilege and wealth), it figured it was more fun to join the Power, especially when so many Jews actually had taken power from the Wasp elites. As Jews took over the elite institutions of power and created newly dominant industries(especially in finance & high-tech and amassed huge fortunes by normalizing vice industries such as gambling), it wasn't a matter of Jews compromising with the powers-that-be. It became a matter of Jews becoming the new powers-that-be, and if anything, non-Jews had to compromise their own values and principles in order to be allowed into the Jew-world of globo-homo power. Sure, Jews kept up with some of the leftist rhetorical flourishes about the workers and the have-nots, but year after year, the New Power came to fixate more on elite-privilege than the People. For example, all the cult of Diversity was essentially about forming an alliance among Jewish elites, white elites, black elites, yellow elites, brown elites, and etc. It was (Fareed)Zakaria-ism. By invoking Diversity, the elites could justify their own privilege by showcasing how their world of power and privilege is oh-so-inclusive, goo. So, it didn’t matter that society became generally less equal and that the rich got richer. The fact is the New Power had token diversity of blacks, yellows, browns, Hindus, and etc., and that apparently meant that The Power was 'fair' and 'just'. Diversity wasn’t about promoting greater equality for all peoples regardless of power. It was about justifying elite wealth and privilege by showcasing that the upper ranks are diverse. So, it’s okay if billionaires get richer and richer if they spread the wealth around to guys like Obama(who got a $60 million book deal). Another major theme of Globo-Homo elite supremacism was Homomania. The Jewish elites made Homos(and even trannies) the poster-children of New Progressivism, and this was even more advantageous than Diversity-ism to the Elites because no people are as obsessed with vanity, privilege, and power as the Homos are. Emancipate and Elevate the Homos, and all they will do is stick around fancy cities and cater to the rich, privileged, and narcissistic. Homos spread diva-ism. Homo Diva-ism + Diversity = Divarsity. Homos are gushy-wushy ass-kissers of the rich and powerful; this is nothing new as the history of the Aristocracy has been about homo artisans making nice fancy things for the rich and powerful. Who do you think made all those powdered wigs for the French aristocrats? It was the fancy-pants fruitkins.
And so, the hope of a more sober and mature Left went up in flames. The Real Left vanished as it was body-snatched by a new bogus ‘leftism’ that justified Elite Privilege with displays of Diversity Tokenism(where the likes of Zakaria kissed the asses of the Empire of Judea, or EOJ) and blessed Elite Power with diva-like homo ‘rainbow’ colors. You see, we shouldn’t care about how Amazon.com is all about super-oligarch Jeff Bezos lording over his underpaid minions. Instead, we should praise him to high heaven because he doles out huge sums to promote Homomania as a neo-religion. And we should honor him for using Washington Post to further the interests of the Deep State that takes orders from the ‘minocracy’(or rule by minority-elites) of Jewish-Globalists. Deep Pockets and Deep State, they go hand in hand by the twisted logic of ‘new leftism’. Worse, the fact that patriots and nationalist continue to refer to such super-powerful people as ‘leftists’ only helps the globalist oligarchy because it creates the false impression that the Elites are for the People. True Leftism has been about People Power, and all successful modern movements had a noble leftist as well as sacred rightist element. If nationalists and patriots had real sense, they would take the mantle of leftism and declare that they represent the fusion of both the left and the right. Instead, they keep calling globalist oligarchs, Jewish ultra-supremacists, and their Deep State minions the ‘left’, creating an impression that Globalism is all about People Power of the downtrodden.
Anyway, white people are not allowed to have autonomous value like Jews and blacks do(especially). Their bodies are not sacred. Jews insist on this because, if whites regarded their own bodies as sacred, they would go into ‘Remember the Alamo’ or ‘Day of Infamy’ mode upon perceiving harm to white bodies. They would be outraged at the notion of their enemies, especially non-whites, massacring or committing atrocities against whites. What is John Ford’s THE SEARCHERS about? It’s about a white man who is driven to rage because of violations committed against what he deems to be sacred white bodies. (Why do Muslims react violently to desecration of Muhammad? He is sacred to them, and defiling his name or image isn’t merely an insult but an infamy. Even crazy Negroes who believe in nothing get all wild and angry when someone says something about their mama, the one person dear to them.) Ethan(John Wayne) is outraged that Red Savages raped and mutilated white women, especially ones dear to him. And he wants to save a white girl from the Red Savages before she is turned into their sexual property who gives birth to half-breed Braves who will wage war on whites. His sense of outrage is nobly race-ist because he doesn’t just see white bodies as instruments of white power but as temples of white sacredness. Indeed, one of the justifications of White Imperialism was that whites have a sense of sacred White Worth whereas non-whites just see their own kind as cannon-fodder and chattel. Of course, in truth, white civilizations used tons of white folks as mere cannon fodder too. Consider how soldiers are used in the famous battle scene in BARRY LYNDON.
They’ve been trained to walk straight into rows and rows of gunfire. Still, ideally at least, Christian and later Enlightenment ethos instilled white folks with the idea that each and every white person is an individual with a unique soul and has value as a member of the most advanced race and culture in the world. So, even though all peoples sacrificed large numbers in wars and revolutions, white elites seriously grieved over their own dead as fellow tribesmen whereas non-white elites just saw their own fallen as expendable dirt. The narrative about the Greeks vs Persians would have us believe that Greek warriors regarded themselves as free men fighting for their independence whereas the Persian army was filled with slave-soldiers who just took orders from above.
This ‘we care for our kind as sacred’ vs ‘they treat their own kind like dirt’ dichotomy was used even in white-vs-white wars. So, in World War I, Anglos and Americans were led to believe that they fight for freedom and honor whereas the Germanic ‘Huns’ just fight out of mindless obedience to tyranny. And whereas Anglos and Americans care for their own fallen, the wicked ‘Huns’ don’t care how many of their own kind die. And similar themes were used in World War II. We’ve all seen movies and TV shows where Americans go out of their way to save their own — like in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN — whereas Germans will even kill their own to gain an advantage. In so many TV shows, American soldiers will lay down their weapons to save one of their own who is held hostage by Germans, but when roles are reversed, the Germans will shoot the German hostage and then the American. Of course, Germans saw things differently. After all, Nazism operated on the premise that German Aryans were infinitely more precious and valuable than the subhuman Russian Slavs, i.e. Germans deserved to win because they regard themselves and treat each other as members of a Noble Race whereas the Slavic order is all about tyrants treating their own kind like serf-like cattle who sheepishly accept their own inferior lot. If the Slavic way is to be slave, then why shouldn’t the Slavs be lorded over by Germans? After all, wasn’t the Russian Empire replaced by the Soviet Empire that had Stalin and Jews rule over Slavs as a slave-race? (Granted, the Soviet Line was that communism values all people as equal comrades whereas Nazi-Fascism is all about capitalist tyranny secured by stooge-demigods such as Mussolini and Hitler. Nazism had difficulty arguing that Soviet Union must be destroyed because it was about tyranny and equality. Both? Apparently, Jewish communists needed to be destroyed because they were tyrannical and egalitarian at once. And Slavs needed to be destroyed because they were slavish and demanding of equality.) If Slavs must be slaves, why not before the most superior race, the Aryans? Of course, Germans were blind to how they themselves had become mental slaves of Hitler who, despite his theory of Aryan Value, used too many of his men as cannon fodder in outrageous wars. Indeed, excessive self-regard of one’s people as sacred can paradoxically pave the way to their slaughter. After all, if one’s race is so sacred and great, any amount of sacrifice is necessary to serve its glory. Japanese had such mindset with their Yamato Race cult. To fulfill the destiny of the Yamato race, Japanese were to go to extreme lengths in war efforts, even if it meant sacrificing millions of Japanese lives. The idea of Japanese sacredness justified the sacrifice of countless actual Japanese lives. It was a mega-macro version of the Japanese cultural principle that honor must take precedence over human life. It is honor that makes life sacred, and therefore it must be preserved at all cost, even if the person must die. Thus, committing seppuku to save one’s sacred honor is dearer than life itself. And in the closing months of WWII in Europe, Hitler and his radical loyalists were willing to have Germany utterly destroyed than survive as a defeated power. Why? They had such high regard for the sacredness of the great Aryans that they preferred that the Aryans all perish in a glorious death than survive as a defeated race.
Finally, the Cold War also used the trope of ‘we care for our kind’ vs ‘they treat their kind like dirt’ as moral justification. So, the US was a Christian nation ruled by principles of liberty whereas the Communist world was all about tyrants using their minions as a slave-army. Given the ways of Stalin and Jewish Bolsheviks, there was a certain truth to such view of the Soviet Empire. Stalin and Jewish Bolsheviks didn’t seem to care how many millions they killed to build industry or enforce ideology. And it seemed even truer with China under Mao. Despite communism’s message of Social Justice, Mao treated his people like so many expendable slaves, dogs, and minions.
Anyway, for much of Western history, especially following the Enlightenment, there was the sense that the white race is more precious because they have a sense of sacred racial worth, something missing from other races where the elites regarded their own people as just minions, slaves, and cannon fodder(and where the people accepted such servile lot, like in the TV show SHOGUN where the Japanese never think in terms of 'my self worth' but 'my service to my superior'). When the US fought China(in the Korean War) and the North Vietnamese(and Viet Cong), it was often noted by Americans that whereas White Americans care for their own kind, the ant-like yellows with their hive-mind and collectivist-outlook, are willing to sacrifice any number of their own kind. White folks thought, "Why should we care for their lives when they don’t care for their own lives?" Of course, the yellows might have argued that they were sacrificing many of their own kind because they had no choice: They had inferior weapons and had to rely more on raw manpower; furthermore, they had a sacred cause worth dying for — National Liberation from Imperialism — and, in that sense, were freely offering up their lives for freedom and independence. Still, the white American viewpoint was, "We deeply care for each of our dead, whereas our enemies don’t care how many of their own kind die."
We hear this theme in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, i.e. that whereas Jews care for Jewish lives, the dirty ‘raghead’ Arabs are willing to sacrifice any number of their own kind(even children), even in suicide bombings, to further their insane terroristic cause. In other words, whereas Zionism is a culture of self-preservation, Arab-ism is a cult of suicide(to commit homicide). When Israel was raining bombs on Gaza, we were told by Israel-Firsters that whereas the Israeli Air Force goes out of its way to avoid civilian targets(LOL), the dirty Arabs use their women and children as ‘human shields’. Never mind it was the Jews who took the land from Palestinians. Never mind Zionists were more than happy to give aid to extreme Jihadi terrorists to wreak havoc in secular modern Arab nations. (The last thing Jews want is the Kemal-Ataturkization of the Arab World. Better to have the Arab world ruled by theocratic Medievalists who depend on Western technology or be overrun with Jihadis who blow up anything that resembles modernity and civilization.) One thing for certain, all the Arab women and children who died in Iraq as the result of US sanctions were not ‘human shields’. They were just victims of the Judeo-Nazi US foreign policy to enforce Zio-Hegemony all across the Middle East. (In such cases, both sides could accuse the other of cold-blooded heartlessness. The Jew-run US could argue all those women and children died in Iraq because cold-blooded Hussein wouldn't budge and would rather have his people die than submit to the righteous West. But others could argue that the Jew-run US was heartless enough to sacrifice countless Arab women and children just to weaken Iraq as a rival power of Israel. Or, both sides could be blamed. Hussein and Zionists were both utterly heartless in their power-obsession, and countless civilians had to pay the price. In the end, it was about power, not morality. After all, Israel has committed many Human Rights abuses and has tons of WMD. It has also sponsored lots of terrorists. But would any Jew support sanctions on Israel that leads to the deaths of 100,000s of Jewish women and children? If such happened, Jews would call it the Second Holocaust, probably claiming the number of 600,000.)
Anyway, whites are no longer allowed to have a sense of sacro-autonomy. Jews are surely aware of what the Awakened Saxon can do when he is outraged by attacks on his kind. In the 19th century, white people had a sense of sacro-autonomy, and this fired up rage against American Indians and violent blacks. While we can argue that American Indians had their own reasons(much of it legitimate) to use violence against White Invaders and that blacks had reasons for rage and rebellion against white oppression, the fact is whites couldn’t abide by non-white violence on whites. So, if black slaves rebelled and raped/murdered white folks, white folks got outraged and taught the Negroes a real serious lesson in violence. And if Indians went on a bloody run against whites, whites made sure that Indians got it much worse. This is how a people with sacro-autonomy react. They get spitting mad over wrongs done to their own kind. This is why Jews had to de-sacralize the white body. For one thing, as Jews came to rely more on the pornification of the white body(as sex meat and commodity to be sold globally via pornography and white-slavery in Israel) for their profits, they had to remove the element of divine-rage from the white soul. It’s like Kosher bleeding of animals. Remove the blood, and the animal grows weak and dies. It’s like castration. Remove the hormones produced by the testes, and the animal is much easier to tame and control. White sacro-autonomy depended on white blood and white balls. Even though we like to think of spirituality and sacredness as divorced from flesh and blood, the fact is we can’t be outraged by defilement and desecration unless we remain hormonal. Why are viewers outraged when demonic forces desecrate the Madonna statue in THE EXORCIST? If we were all spirit and no flesh, we’d just be flaky and feel no emotions at all. We feel outrage when holy things are desecrated because of powerful hormonal drives. If you suck out all the hormones from a Christian, he won’t feel outrage when a Church is destroyed. He’ll just be zonked out and find everything ‘equally beautiful’. An experiment was done on some guy who had all his hormones sucked out, and he couldn’t feel anger over anything and found everything equally 'nice'. Nothing offended him. So, Jews needed to castrate and bleed the white body. Castrated white male goes cucky-wuck and feels no manly pride and manly outrage over the Jewish defilement of the white female body, especially as plaything for Negro men. (In contrast, precisely because Jews do feel a powerful sense of sacro-autonomy, they would be OUTRAGED if pornography was controlled by Arab men and exploited mostly Jewish women as sex-meat for Negroes. Or if Jews found out Slavic gangsters were enslaving Jewish women and forcing them into prostitution to serve filthy goy men.) Anemic white souls devoid of blood cells after PC-kosherization feel no special sense of outrage when they hear about how white bodies have been attacked, raped, brutalized and mangled by black savages in South Africa or in the US. This is why Jews and blacks can use white women as cum-buckets & sex-meat BUT there is no pushback from white men. When Jews did this to Germans in the Weimar period for a decade and half, especially during the dire yrs of Depression, Germans just about had enough and decided to teach the Jews a lesson for defiling the German body and soul. And if Jews had done in the first half of the 20th century what they’re now doing to the white race, many white Americans would have been outraged by the filth of the Christ-killing Race. (If there was far less outrage over Jewish Communist massacres of the white race in Russia, it was because whites in Western Europe and the US had gotten accustomed to regarding the Eastern Slavs as not fully white or worthy. And Orthodox Faith seemed like some exotic heresy.)
But that was then, this is now. Jews have so thoroughly messed up the white mind that white people now think it is sinful — ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’ — for white folks to be outraged by violence done to sacred white bodies. Via Ta Nehisi Coates, Jews got white people to fret about and atone for sacro-tragic black bodies but never ever to worry about white bodies. This is why Jews hate any white person who cares about whites in South Africa. This is why Jew-run Youtube shut down Colin Flaherty who documented the black-war-on-white-bodies all across America(and even Australia). Today, white elites who yammer on and on about how ‘black lives matter’ and how we must care about sacred Jewish bodies in Israel say NOTHING about all those White Death resulting from drug overdose, opoiod addiction, and suicide. If anything, they are deathly afraid that any expression of white-on-white sympathy will be denounced as ‘racist’, ‘nazi’, ‘far right’, and ‘white supremacist’. Indeed, Jews have convinced white people that whites suck so bad that they don’t even deserve to give birth to white kids to inherit white-created civilization. Instead of preserving and bequeathing the white-and-white-made world to white kids, whites must import tons of non-whites to take over as not only New Americans, New Canadians, and New Australians but even as New Europeans in the very birthplace of the white race. BBC even goes out of its way to retro-fit European heroes and great men with Negroids. And white wombs are no longer the sacred creators of white lives but to be regarded as colonized spaces for creating black mulatto babies. The ONLY kind of permitted white rage is against signs of recovery of white sacro-autonomy. According to Jews, whites-caring-for-whites is evil because it will lead to white supremacism.
Now, if white self-regard turns into radical self-worship, it can lead to something dangerous. But what is wrong with whites wanting to survive in their own nations? Why do Jews and non-whites fear ‘white separatism’ and ‘white independence’ so much? It’s one thing to denounce white imperialism and white aggression, but what is so wrong with whites who want to live in a world of their own and mind their own business? After all, non-whites can live in their own worlds and mind their own business too. Of course, we know the reason. Jews and non-whites fear white separatism not because it’s aggressive against Jews and non-whites but because it means Jews and non-whites will have to make it on their own in their own worlds. The fact is they want entry into white worlds because, deep down inside, they believe whites do everything better and are better people to be around. Indeed, the cult of immigration & diversity are about demographic imperialism into white lands by Jews and non-whites who want to partake of white success because they do so much worse among their own kind in their own worlds. So, if they prefer whiteness so much, why do they attack and disparage whiteness? Because they must shame whites with ‘white guilt’ in order to lower white defenses against non-white immigration-invasion. Look at Jewish immigration patterns, and Jews always chased after white people and white success. If Jews now have it so good in white lands, why do they push Immigration and Diversity? Because they fear the rise of the Awakened Saxon who might bring down Jewish Power. Why might ‘Saxons’ awake to take on the Jew? Because Jews know themselves to be a bunch of a**holes. Jews know that too many of their kind are like Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, and other nasty creatures. Jews know they can’t help their Jewish a**hole nature. Jews know that, eventually, they will wear out their welcome as they’d done over and over throughout history. Because so many Jews act so wretchedly, even Holocaust Guilt will fade in time, and the Awakened Saxon could very well kick Jewish butt. This is why Jews promote Diversity-Democracy where the once-majority will become just another minority, and then the various goy minorities will be tearing each other apart while Jews at the top eat and enjoy life like Effendi.
Jews bitching about white ‘racism’ is too funny because the #1 demand that Jews make on white people is to favor Jews, Zionists, and Israelis over Palestinians and Arabs. And it’s even funnier when Jews pretend to care about Arab lives. Remember when parts of Syria like Aleppo were on the verge of being liberated by Assad’s military from Jihadi terrorist elements? The very Jews who’d aided and abetted the Jihadis who tore Syria apart were pretending to care for poor innocent civilians who might fall into the clutches of evil Assad. Also, vile Jews who pushed for the Syrian War that turned so many people into refugees were pretending to care about those refugees who were to be resettled in Europe. Jews never opposed the wars that forced so many people into refugee-status. If anything, Jews instigated those wars and loved to see Arabs turned into refugees. Jewish faux-sympathy began ONLY WHEN those refugees poured into Europe. Jewish morality doesn’t oppose the forcing of millions into refugee-status. It only makes noises about caring for those refugees to be resettled in the West. Jewish Sympathy is never genuine when dealing with non-Jews. It is always weaponized and politicized. A Jew will burn someone’s house down and then blame YOU for being a cold-hearted bastard for not taking in the stricken family. If you mention that the family lost its house because the Jewish guy burned it down, he will scream ‘antisemitism’. What a vile people. Now, we know why antisemitism existed for so long. And we know why Jews are so eager to push Diversity. A people so dirty and lowdown are bound to be found out sooner or later. Jews are like Gypsies or Southern Italians with higher IQ. They are like Puerto Ricans with IQ of 115. Too many of them have no integrity or honor. Their greedy-profit and arrogant-prophet mentality makes it impossible for many of them to be self-aware of their pathological wretchedness. Ironically enough, their pathology is similar to that of Adolf Hitler who was impossible to reason with. Consider the personality of Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler, and there is little difference. Sure, Rand talked of individual liberty, but she really meant the right of the super-duper uber-individual towering over the dummy masses.
Anyway, white people can no longer regard themselves as sacro-autonomous. Jews can feel holy for being Jews and demand that the world do something to safeguard Jews wherever they are. And blacks can feel holy for being black and make demands on the white world to do MORE for blacks. (Never mind that blacks among themselves don’t treat blackness as holy. They see blackness as something to beat and kill, what with rappers insulting one another endlessly. And black Africa is about tribal jungle savagery of black-on-black violence not unlike violence found among crazy chimpanzees and howling baboons. Among themselves, blacks see and treat each other like wild apes. Ironically, even as black bitch about white ‘racism’, their ticket to holiness is through white eyes because, despite white historical violence against blacks, it was white people who created the sacral image of the Noble Negro as something akin to black-christ who done suffer and get whipped for the sins of white folks, sheeeeeeiiiit. While blacks in Africa saw each other as jigaboos and jungle-bunners to chuck spears at, white folks instilled with Christian Guilt and Enlightenment Hopes saw in the Negro the hopes of salvation, for both Negro and white man alike. Via the white man, the Negro would rise from savagery to spirituality. And via the Negro as slave-to-savior, white man would rediscover the true meaning of Christianity. After all, Christianity began as a slave religion. Thus, as slaves, blacks would carry the American Cross, and whites would be soul-saved by it. This was all the product of white imagination and idealization. It was a projection of white fantasy onto the Negro. Ironically, white oppression of the Negro was necessary for sanctification of the Negro. It wasn’t only a matter of white sympathy for oppressed blacks but white molding of more powerful black energies. Savage black energies under slavery and white domination couldn’t just run wild like a pack of chimps and baboons. Under white rule, blacks had to curtail and restrain their raw and powerful drives. Thus, Afro-savage energies sang about serving Da Lawd and loving Jeeeeesus. The themes were spiritual, about ‘muh soul’ than ‘muh dick’. If not for white oppression, this ‘noble’ side of the Negro would never have emerged because, when allowed to run free, the Negro has only one thing on his or her mind: ‘Muh dick’ or ‘muh booty’. Upon black emancipation, year after year, black culture has been drifting toward reversion back to jungle savagery. Among blacks in the US, there is constant violence and mayhem. Among black Africans, it’s endless ape-like tribal violence, mass rape, and murder. This is why blacks rely on White Guilt and White Hope to maintain the myth of black holiness because, all on their own, the only thing blacks care about are black holes[either bullet holes or vaginal holes] than black holiness. This is what sets blacks apart from Jews. While Jews exploit and manipulate the cult of white guilt, they’ve long possessed an idea of Jewish Holiness rooted in the Covenant with God. Jews were not a bunch of savages but among the most civilized peoples in the world. In contrast, blacks were totally into oogity-boogity jungle savagery before modern world encroached on Africa. Blacks never thought it morally wrong to capture tons of blacks and sell them to whites and Arabs. There was nothing transcendent about their world that had no written language, no deep religion, and no mythology beyond primitive animism. Indeed, it’s telling that the Noblest African figure has become Nelson Mandela, whose mythology is totally linked to White Guilt and White Redemption. It goes to show that while whites care about white injustice done to blacks, blacks across Africa don’t give a shit about what they’d done to other blacks.)
Anyway, we now have whites with no sense of independent self-worth or sacro-autonomy. It is wrong for white folks to worry about the state of white bodies. (After 9/11, the Jew-run media were careful to frame the attack as an outrage against American freedoms[such as shopping and whoring around] than against American bodies, especially white ones who did most of the dying on that day.) You see, White Guilt informs whites that when they fought to defend or avenge white bodies, they committed all sorts of evils against non-whites, most problematically against Jews and blacks. So, whites must stop caring for fellow whites because that would mean white bodies are sacred, which would be a form of ‘far right’ supremacism. BUT, Jews must care for the holiness of Jewish bodies. So, if there’s any violence against any Jew in some part of the world, not only all Jews but all whites must do something about it because Jewish lives are oh-so-very-precious. As for blacks, we should ignore all the black-on-black violence and black-on-white violence and just fixate on how White Guilt must atone for all the violence done to black bodies and make amends by massaging black ego and opening Europe to endless migration-invasions by Black Africans. Furthermore, jungle-feverish white women and cucky-wuck white boys should worship black bodies as superior because of harder muscles and bigger dongs and bouncier booties(though not to the extent of GET OUT where black-worshiping whites want to literally take over black bodies; the fear in GET OUT is rather like Aryan fears of Jews as the parasitic agent upon the host body).
If whites cannot care for whiteness, what is left for them, especially if they are ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’, i.e. filled with the conceit of being secular, rational, skeptical, and even intellectual? Should they merely be cynical about most things? Should they always be in the satirical mindset, mocking naive beliefs and passions of the mob? Should they raise questions about everything and fix a cold gaze on any assumption or prejudice without the backing of hard evidence? And surely enough, plenty of White ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ types display such demeanor and act as if they’re too smart, educated, and sophisticated to fall for idiocies, superstitions, prejudices, and mob passions that characterize so much of American Life and Politics. TV fare like THE DAILY SHOW, THE STEPHEN COLBERT SHOW, BILL MAHER show, and etc. played on such conceits. You see, being ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ meant they weren’t afraid to challenge authority, ask hard questions, and cut through the nonsense to get at the truth. Unlike the moronic masses hoodwinked by religion or chants of USA-USA-USA, these supposedly rational and skeptical ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ types were properly irreverent in their discussion of politics, power, and the larger world... except that they really weren’t.
For intellectual, sophisticated, and/or satirical types to be truly rational, skeptical, and secular, they must have a reserve of cynicism about all the official dogmas that govern our society, culture, and power structure. And yet, these so-called rational-skeptical-secular types get all mushy-gushy about certain subjects, themes, and issues. Their rational and empirical mental faculties completely shut down when confronted with certain icons and narratives. Why is this? Part of it could be fear and cowardice on their part. After all, anyone who doesn’t toe the PC line about Jews, blacks, and homos will be destroyed by the Powers-that-be. But another reason could be that, given human nature’s innate leaning toward the sacred and religious, they need SOMETHING to worship, something to hold dear as sacrosanct and redemptive of the soul. It became apparent pretty early on that Marxism and Leninism, despite their claims of ‘science’ and ‘reason’, could only survive as neo-religions. Indeed, most communists felt a need to not only admire Marx and Lenin as great thinkers but worship them as prophets and deliverers. Not only was communism vulnerable to rational and empirical(and moral) scrutiny by naysayers but communists would have felt pretty empty if they believed that their ideology was correct simply as an economic theory. The appeal of communism had to do with the idea that Marx, godlike in his wisdom and prophecy, figured it all out and threaded all the themes of history, morality, philosophy, economics, science, and politics into a single unified idea. Though communism claimed to be a materialist philosophy, the sheer feat of Marx’s depth and breadth of understanding was deemed so astounding that he was virtually worshiped as a god-man. Thus, Marxism-Leninism not only satisfied the vanity of modern intellectuals who regarded themselves as scientific and rational but their repressed spiritual longing for deliverance and redemption.
We now live in the post-Marxist age, and the new batch of ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ like to consider themselves as more knowing and aware than the leftists of the past who’d foolishly fallen for the false utopian dreams of communism. Indeed, even people who claim to be ‘communist’ today more likely got their ideas from songs of the Clash or Rage Against the Machine. They are pop-communists or punk-radicals, more attitude than conviction. Some of them are really just anarcho-terrorist thugs who need to justify their shitty behavior with something. In this, they aren’t much different from ISIS that hides behind Islam to revel in rock-n-roll kind of anarcho-terrorism. At any rate, most of today’s Progs and Libby-dibs are not communist or even socialist. Sure, they may call themselves ‘socialist’, but their primary interest is cultural(mostly pop-cultural) than economic. And even their socialism has less to do with justice for the working class than with more free stuff and benefits for wanna-be-elites who didn’t make the cut. Vast increases in college enrollment created a vast pool of graduates who think they have a ‘right’ to be professors or have some fancy ‘creative’ profession. When things don’t pan out that way, they want Bernie Sanders to write off their college debts and offer them SOMETHING that resembles ‘creative’ professions. They want to maintain the illusion that they too belong to the Creative Class or Creass. So, their main fixation is about attitude and conceit of being part of the hip, cool, smart, creative, sophisticated, and irreverent clique(that now counts for more than class): Claque. They act like they are so aloof and above it all. But being human, they have human nature, and human nature is innately spiritual. So, even as they act like they are above most things, they still feel a need to feel immersed in something holy, sacrosanct, and redemptive. Some find it in New Age cults, but that stuff is too flaky and weak to satisfy one’s longing for sacro-religious deliverance. Then, this explains why PC is so strong among those who claim to be rational, skeptical, & secular OR hip, cool, & aloof OR satirical, cynical, & irreverent. Despite or precisely because of those claims, they feel empty unless they have some strong sense of the holy or sacrosanct. Since they are too educated or hip for Old Time Religion and too cynical(and/or impatient) for elaborate textual theories like Marxism(that sought to explain everything with the Big Idea), they are drawn to icons, idols, narratives, the ‘feels’, chants, delirium, hysteria, and/or fits of righteous rage. They must believe in something to feel justified and blessed. So, paradoxically, some of the most cynical, irreverent, and mocking people tend to be totally delirious and enraptured with the sanctity of certain things. If they were cynical about everything, they’d feel empty because human nature longs for the sacred. But since they are utterly cynical about most things, they do feel a great deal of emptiness(because glib and smarmy derision of others cannot be the emotional core of life), and this emptiness has to be filled by their faith in SOMETHING. Since they are too cynical and derisive to conceive of something holy on their own, they rely on others to supply the holiness to them. And this is where Jew-run PC does its magic. It offers neo-holy-relics to the cynical, the hip, the aloof, the irreverent, the smarmy, and etc.
Jews understand the paradox of human nature. By promoting cynicism, they also promote sinner-ism. The more someone feels cynical, the more he feels like a sinner since he doesn’t believe in anything. Therefore, the cynic longs for some strong faith, but he doesn’t know where to find it since he is, well, too cynical. It is then that Jews supply such people with The Answer. Because the modern cynic tends to be secular and ‘educated’(and/or hip or cool), he can’t accept Old Time religion. Because he’s too immersed in pop culture, he cannot sit still and read to imbibe complex theories and philosophy. Rather, he must find the Answer in jolts of images and sounds via electronica. And because his mind is too aloof and cynical to accept the ‘spiritual’, it has to enter through modes of sensory-overload... which is why TV, Hollywood, pop music, and glitzy celebrity-images(as well as massive colorful homo-tranny pageantry) are so crucial in turning cynics into sinner-converts seeking redemption. Whether it’s Lindsay Lohan or James Comey, the cynic-sinner complex works more or less the same way. Lohan blew her career with excess of cynicism. She was into drugs, alcohol, partying, and the wild life. She indulged in all sorts of vice as if life is about nothing but fun, fun, and fun. But at the end of the day, she felt empty and found meaning in PC notions of SAVING people... like in her recent stunt involving 'refugee kids'.
James Comey hasn't been a debauched lunatic, and he got the best of secular modern education. He couldn’t go for Old Time religion or Tradition. He regarded himself as a rational man who understood power. And he climbed the ladder in the FBI. No one can get that far in such a field without much cynicism about power and privilege. And Comey was a social-climber and status-seeker. Cynical operator who knew the tricks of the trade. But that wasn’t enough for him as human nature calls for sacredness. So, Comey attached himself to PC globo-homo faith and convinced himself that his foibles in the bowels of the Deep State was all about honor and serving the holy writ of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and feminism-with-pussy-hats. And look at Michael Moore. Nasty, boorish, irreverent, cantankerous, and cynical about power and the official story. But is Moore consistently cynical about everything? No, his excessive cynicism about the world made him long for certain sacred truths, and like so many of his ilk, he found it in presenting Negroes as the Holy Race who are ALWAYS VICTIMS. Even fat disgusting irreverent Moore has to believe in something. In contrast, whatever one thinks of Jim Goad(who is a self-admitted a**hole and not a very nice guy), he has the courage to be an equal opportunity offender to all sides that dare to champion some form of holiness. In this, Goad is something of a mutant, a freak of nature, because he has overridden the innate longing for the sacred. In his brief debate with Kevin Michael Grace, we see the difference between cynic-sinner and cynic-cynic.
Kevin Michael Grace is a rightist-cynic who has a sharp tongue about most things, but he feels a need to believe in God and the sacraments of Catholicism. Cynicism about everything would feel empty and hollow to him. In contrast, Goad has either the courage or madness to embrace cynicism wholeheartedly and rain abuse on all sides that dares to say skepticism should be sacrificed for the sake of the Faith(in God or PC). But generally, people who believe in nothing feel a need to believe in something for compensation to patch the spiritual deficit. This is what Vito Corleone understood about Luca Brasi, a self-loathing monster of a man with no sense of meaning in life. So, when Vito Corleone, obviously a superior man, offered his friendship to Brasi, it was like a Saul/Paul in Damascus Moment for the thug. The fact that a man as impressive as Vito Corleone offered friendship to a monster such as himself was overwhelming to Luca Brasi. And in RESERVOIR DOGS, Mr. Blonde(Michael Madsen) is one crazy bastard psycho-killer who believes in nothing. And yet, it is all-too-credible that he, of all people, turned out to be the most loyal member of the crew to the father-and-son team. His one redemptive point of pride was that he keeps his word. He may be a predator but he’s no rat, and he is loyal. A total psycho-cynic, he feels his sins are redeemed by his total devotion to his boss. And consider the very cynical thriller CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER where it turns out that the government is overrun with cunning, unscrupulous, and devious operators. After all, what do we expect from politicians and the Deep State? And yet, despite all the cynicism about power, the film-makers felt a need to present a Magic Negro in the form of James Earl Jones as an ailing CIA director. (We are supposed to believe that the head of the CIA has the heart of an angel, but then, cynics-as-sinners must believe in something, and PC has promoted the Magic Negro as one of the most reliable tropes.) And incredibly, Oliver Stone’s conspiracy-epic JFK would have us believe that the US government and Deep State are utterly corrupt, compromised, and ruthless BUT John F. Kennedy was the great hope of Camelot who was a true pearl among swine. But if the system is really that corrupt and compromised, how did it allow such a noble idealist to gain the presidency, finally to be murdered as Caesar-as-Christ? Also, why is a man as cynical as Oliver Stone so willing to believe in the nobility of ‘great men’ like John F. Kennedy, Fidel Castro, or Hugo Chavez? Doesn’t power have its own logic and corrupt anyone? But Stone seems to believe that it’s all about personalities: Noble ones vs Nasty ones. His rampant cynicism makes him feel empty and cries out to be delivered by some myth of the Noble Deliverer, the man who offers hope and cleansing to sinners. (It’s like BLADE RUNNER 2049 presents an utterly bleak and cynical future of ruthless power and mindless hedonism BUT asks us to ponder the possibility of the redemptive ‘miracle’.) But such a man doesn’t exist as no man, even the best, is no angel or messiah. So, it’s not surprising that JFK the movie is all about the myth and not the man. In contrast, NIXON is all about the man, the one who embodied what we ‘are’ than what we want ‘to be’. It is truer about the nature of power but also bleaker... and people want that light at the end of the tunnel, even if it's artificial light.
