Monday, April 30, 2018

A Response to Eric Margolis’ Denunciation of Ken Burns’ THE VIETNAM WAR Documentary

For Eric Margolis’ article, click: THE VIETNAM NIGHTMARE – AGAIN

I don’t think Ken Burns is entirely wrong in empathizing with those who were involved in the conflict. Sure, there were warmongers, profiteers, and egomaniacs. And paranoids.

But Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon were not particularly sadistic or cruel men. Now, Eisenhower could be aloof or angry. Kennedy could be vain. Johnson was plenty corrupt. Nixon could be nasty. But they were not psychos or radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.

As for the military brass, well, what would one expect? They were educated, trained, and prepared all their lives to think of the world in terms of team sports. They were trained to fight and win, not to think of higher matters or deeper truths. Sure, West Point and Annapolis educated bright students who learned history and ideas, but it all came down to one thing: Fighting and Winning. As for the CIA, it is a sinister organization by design — an agency of necessary evil — , but then, let’s keep in mind that Soviets had a worthy counterpart in the KGB. Let’s remember Soviets infiltrated FDR’s government and stole a lot of secrets and planted a lot of subversives. Soviets even got the Bomb during the Truman era. Also, Soviets ruthlessly suppressed and persecuted dissent in their own empire. And EVERY nation has its own version of the CIA. If CIA did more damage, it was because powerful nations just have more means to do so.

Now, would the US have intervened in Vietnam if it was on the verge of being united under a non-communist nationalist? Probably not. After all, the US didn’t intervene in Indonesia when it gained independence under Sukarno. The only reason US got involved in Vietnam was because Ho was a Soviet-leaning communist. And even though Domino Theory is thought to have been ‘debunked’, it certainly made sense at the time. Even Soviets believed it. So did Mao, which is why China, though poor and backward, sent aid to rebel groups all over the world. Soviets believed that a sign of US weakness could spark revolutions all over the Third World that equated capitalism with imperialism. Che Guevara certainly believed in the Domino Theory. Communist victory over Cuba, he thought, would start a wildfire of anti-Yanqui revolutions all over Latin America and then eventually spread to the US as well. Che really believed this, which is why he spent some time in the Congo and later died in a failed insurgency in Bolivia.

Also, at least in part, the Domino Theory did come true. Not so much in Southeast Asia, though Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. And keep in mind Indonesia could have become communist if the Peking-backed coup had succeeded. And keep in mind that the communist victory in Malaysia was prevented only by ruthless British strategy of hurling huge numbers of people into concentration camps and hamlets.
At any rate, communism did continue to spread after the fall of Vietnam. US power seemed to be on the wane, not least because of social conflicts and cultural decay that defined much of the 60s and early 70s. Americans threw in the towel after losing ‘only’ 58,000 men. The outside world got the impression that Americans no longer had the resolve to impose their hegemony on the world. If a ragtag army in Cuba could defy Uncle Sam in the early 60s and if guerrilla troops in Vietnam could defeat the greatest technological power, maybe America lost its warrior soul as the result of excessive freedom, pleasure, and individualism. It seemed like dejavu of Pax Romana's decline, what with a populace that was no longer respectful of authority and no longer willing to make sacrifices.

Not only communists were emboldened by American troubles(and ultimate 'defeat') in Vietnam. Vietnam became a metaphor for anti-Americanism all over the world. May 68 movement that almost brought down the French government was inspired in part by Vietnam(though it ignited as a silly scuffle about dorms and sex). Vietnam was bigger than Algeria because US was a World Power. French troubles in Algeria weren't all that surprising as France was an empire in decline. French defeat was a setback for a European power, not a World Power.

So, after the US abandoned South Vietnam, there was a sense that David could beat Goliath anywhere in the world. The Shah regime in Iran fell, and Islamists came to power. Afghanistan turned communist, and Soviets felt emboldened to roll in the tanks. Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola turned communist. Communists won in Nicaragua and almost won in El Salvador and Guatemala. There was a raging Maoist insurgency in Peru. Salvador Allende came to power through elections, and he was pro-Soviet and pro-Cuba. He was removed only by CIA-backed coup that did as much harm as good. It certainly blackened US reputation around the world. So, in a way, the Domino Theory wasn’t all wrong. Vietnam did signal a sea-change in world politics… at least in perception. Ironically, the Vietnam example inspired the US and the Mujahadeen to pull off something similar in Afghanistan against the Soviet Empire.

In the end, communism wasn’t defeated by the US. It defeated itself. Soviet economics just couldn’t sustain the empire. Its subsidies to Cuba were costly. Its support of Marxist regimes in Africa was a constant drain, like flushing money down a toilet. USSR had to prop up Iron Curtain nations economically. As Eastern European nations were limited in natural resources, their economies had to rely on manufacturing, which meant Soviet industry had to be suppressed. And Vietnamese communism was a disaster in economic terms. Maoism was hell on earth.
Some might argue communism failed because Capitalist West froze the communists out of world trade. But considering that the communist world encompassed resource-rich Soviet Empire, people-rich China, and lots of neutral nations willing to do business with communist nations — India and Arab nations had good relations with Soviets — , the real reason for the failure of communism was it just doesn’t work.

And when we look at the aftermath of communist victory in Indochina — brutal repression in Vietnam and Laos and psychotic democide in Cambodia — and when we consider how even communist nations like China and Vietnam eventually made the switch to market economics, it’s clear that US was on the right side of history at least on basic economic theory.

Also, the Vietnam conflict was complicated because both sides were aggressors. US was the aggressor in working with the French to divide Vietnam in half, occupying the southern half, dropping bombs, and using Viet women as whores. But the communists were also aggressors because they sought to impose Stalinism on the entire nation when, in fact, many people didn’t want it. After all, more people fled the north to the south than vice versa. Why? Because there’s something prison-like about communism. The commissars never leave you alone, and there are so many things you aren’t allowed to do. It’s a system where you can’t do so many things and are told to do lots of things that make little sense.

Also, North Vietnamese leaders, though inspired and patriotic, were ruthless in their own way, willing to sacrifice any number of people for victory… just like Japanese militarists were willing to Go All the Way in the Pacific War instead of calling it quits to save lives. Also, many atrocities were carried out by the communists as well. The massacre in Hue, for instance. In war, all sides do horrible things.

Still, in retrospect, Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot, a legendary figure much beloved by many Viets. And for that reason, US shouldn’t have intervened in the first place, and the whole mess could have been avoided. There is no getting around the fact that Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot who devoted his life to gaining independence for his people. Even though communism was an unfortunate choice, his formative years were defined by a world in which the great empires were capitalist while the Soviet Union lent a hand, symbolic or material, to Third World peoples yearning to gain independence.

CucKen Burns makes my skin crawl, but at his best, he can look at both sides of the issue instead of going for a b/w version of history with good guys vs bad guys.

That said, perhaps his rather sympathetic take on Cold Warriors reflects the neo-hegemonic worldview of globalism. As Proglobalists now control the US, the neo-Pax-Americana is about the dissemination of agendas favored by people like CucKen Burns: Homomania, Afromania, feminism, Diversity, and EOJ(or Empire of Judea). Today’s progs want the world to become neo-Americanized because America itself has been remade into a giant globo-experiment. We now live in a Metropolar World.
Indeed, in today’s Vietnam, as journalist Linh Dinh had duly noted, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery. So, considering that Viet communists had fought for patriotism and national sovereignty, it could be that the new Western ‘progressives’ now almost feel as though the US was on the right side of history all along.

After all, where was CucKen Burns when Obama and Hillary were destroying Libya, Ukraine, Syria, and etc. Where were he and his ilk when Jews were cooking up New Cold War with Russia with hysteria that would make Joe McCarthy blush? They all seem to have learned to love the empire. Their ilk are now in the commanding heights of all institutions and industries. So, US imperialism now means the spread of more proggery all over the world.

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Problem of Lack of Individuality in Russian National Character — Communal Sense without Individual Spark means Lack of Reform, Progress, and Growth


Anatoly Karlin wrote about the problems of Russia in The Russian Empire: Too Nice for Its Own Good

I’m thinking that the problem with Russians is the lack of individuality.

Now, some on the Right(esp Alt Right) are skeptical and even hostile to this thing called individualism. They see it as selfish, egotistical, vain, atomizing, and ahistoric. This may indeed be true in cases where individualism is the core of one’s worldview and ‘value’ system.

But individuality can serve something bigger than itself. And any agenda, vision, or order is best served by energized individuals with the will to be bold, headstrong, inspired, ingenious, and innovative. The problem with collectivism is it discourages and dampens individual initiative, and of course, initiative is always a function of individuality. So, even though the collective consciousness emphasizes the good of the whole, the actual good comes from those individuals who make the extra effort to assert their will and make dreams come true. Collective consciousness is necessary for a community of shared identity, values, and purpose. But the collective is about inertia than initiative. In order for things to get started, the individual must provide the initiative. Collective consciousness is like a pile of logs waiting to be lit. But they alone cannot make fire. It takes a spark. Individuality and Initiative are the sparks created by striking of flint stones. It’s like we can create any institution to serve the community in a specific capacity. It can be a center for art, drama, or music. And the members of the community can collectively agree on the purpose of the institution. But that collective knowledge will not create art, drama, or music. It takes individuals with initiative who are willing to pour their energies into creating something unique or special. Collective consciousness is about a general sense of what is necessary. Lots of people can agree that fine music would be a good thing. But it takes strong individuals like Mozart or Beethoven to actually make the music. And this is why the culture of individuality has been so important in the rise of the West in contrast to the Rest where collective conformity suppressed individual initiatives as rude, irreverent, presumptuous, destabilizing, or subversive.
Of course, a fanatical ideology that values radical individualism above all other considerations is bound to be fatal. The paradox of Ayn Rand’s success is that she reached mass readers with a vision that actually held most of them in contempt. Her obsession was only with the BEST, the 1% of the 1% in talent, beauty, and/or wealth. She saw most of humanity as just useless rabble whose only meaningful purpose was to serve as helot-cattle whose menial production and material consumption would sustain an economy that could fund and fulfill the mental vision of the genius. The fantastic element was in the idealized hero who possessed not only great talent but granite integrity and spellbinding beauty. (Reality is, of course, far messier and more complicated, less a myth of heroes than mystery of hustlers and hermits who, often by accident, stumbled on something remarkable.) She railed against middlebrow comprises(as characterized by Toohey), but hers was a middlebrow fantasy of heroic elitism sold to mediocrities. Still, upon arriving in the US, she was quick to notice what was missing in Russia due to Slavic tradition and Bolshevik tyranny. Both provided a general sense of the common good but repressed the independence and initiative of individuality. (On the other hand, Rand failed to understand that hyper-individualism destroys democratic individualism because the hyper-individual comes to believe that he is so great and awesome as a man of destiny that his individual will must trample over the individual wills of others. So, even as Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler came to be associated with anti-individualism, it was because they were hyper-individuals with radical will who felt that their individual vision must quell all obstacles. Not for nothing did Alexander the Great and Napoleon come to be associated with both individuality and tyranny. If every individuality was equal, nothing great can be done. The great individual must trample on the individuality of others and bend them to his individual will. Whether this is done through communism or capitalism, the dynamics is much the same. Still, a capitalist system allows for more than one powerful individual to call the shots, and that allows for more competition and achievement.)

There is collectivism where people conceive of the common good and try to work as a team. The downside of such mindset is passivity. After all, everyone would be waiting around to be told what to do for the common good. He’d lack the individual will to put forth his own ideas and plans. He’d know how to receive and take orders but not how to assert himself and propose/execute ideas to lead others.

There is individualism where the only consideration is self-interest or self-satisfaction. The most extreme type of this kind of individualism is found in gangsterism, vice industry, and globalism. Druglords don’t care what narcotics may do to society. They only care about raking in the bucks. Vice industry casino oligarchs don’t care about the negative impact of gambling on morals and values. They only care about profits. And globalist entrepreneurs don’t care about the peoples of their own nation and around the world. They just play the entire world to maximize wealth and prestige for themselves.

But there is the third option: Individualism for the shared national good. Peter Thiel is partly of this school. He believes in individual enterprise, boldness, risk-taking, and innovation… but he also believes there must be a sense of national purpose and good.

The problem with Russians is this lack of individuality for the national good. Many Russians do have a collective & shared sense of national good, but it isn’t enough to provide the spark for enterprise, innovation, and reforms. And some Russians do have a narrow sense of individualism that only cares about the self. Such egotistic opportunism will even do things that hurts the nation-as-a-whole as long as there is something in it for ‘me’.
Russian(often Russian-Jewish)individualism has taken the form of self-serving egomania. Its only obsession is to become rich by any means necessary and live like a king with yachts and mansions all over the world. (To be sure, Jewish-Russian oligarchs at least have a sense of "Is it good for the Jews?" They are willing to exploit and cause harm to Russia for self-gain, but they will serve the interests of Israel and EOJ or the Empire of Judea.) This kind of pathologically self-centered individualism is harmful to the nation. The powerful, the privileged, and the well-connected only care about themselves. And as fish rots from the head, such excessive vanity seeps down to the masses who, though remaining poor, ape the crass, trashy, and narcissistic. Of course, it’s a problem in the US too, with moronic masses imitating, at least in style and attitude, the decadent excesses of celebrities.

There has long been a sense of communal and shared good in Russian culture, and it goes back to the spread of Christianity… which may explain why so many Russians took to communism, which seemed familiar to Russian sensibility. Russians, lacking individuality and initiative, were used to being told what to do. They were used to others doing the talking for them. This kind of communalism discouraged individuality, spark, adventure, and can-do-spirit. It emphasized conformism to orthodoxy of the righteous and just, whether under Christianity, Tsarism, or communism. Or Putinism.

There is a positive side to communalism but also a negative side. Without sufficient individual spark and boldness, too many communal-minded people remain passive and sit around to be told what to do. In contrast, communalism of energetic individuals will be lit by sparks of initiative and will. In IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, George Bailey is compelled by circumstances to strive for the good of the town, but he is bursting with boundless individuality. He knows how to take charge. He is idealistic, resourceful, adaptive, and keen. He knows how to engage with all kinds of people. He has both communal spirit and individuality. In contrast, the lack of individuality in Russia led to too many Russkies just waiting around to be told what to think or do. Or, the strong individual exerted his precious will to control than inspire others. Consider the Strelnikov character in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. He is strong-willed like George Bailey, but he instills fear than inspires freedom.



The difference between assertive communalism(of individuals) and passive(or tyrannical) communalism(of collective mindset) is this: Suppose the electricity goes out in a community. In the community of civic-minded individuals, many will try to contact the company to see what’s up. Each person will try to take the initiative. In contrast, in the latter community, everyone will just sit around trusting or hoping that someone ELSE will do something about the power outage. This makes all the difference.

America used to be both individual and communal. It had civic sense and national unity, and it was composed of individuals who rolled up their sleeves in can-do spirit and went about building and fixing things. In contrast, the Russian lack of individualism meant a communalism that tended toward inertia or lethargy as most people lacked initiative and just waited around for orders from above. And Putinism hasn’t fixed this national character flaw in the Russian mindset.

Indeed, what is striking about the ‘Russian Revolution’ was how non-Russian much of it was. How was it that a small rabble of Jews, Latvians, Poles, and even Georgians gained so much power over vast numbers of Russians who almost overnight became their servants? Those other cultures had a stronger assertive will(though not in the Anglo-libertarian mode). Russian masses had long been inculcated to follow orders and do like others do. (This was why the Whites were doomed in the Civil War with the Reds. The Reds, though anti-liberty, found a way to whip up mass frenzy. The Russian masses were made to feel they were playing a heroic role in history. In contrast, the elitist and reactionary Whites had little to offer but orders and commands that promised nothing but return to the old order.) Unlike Russians, the ethno-minority Bolsheviks came from cultures that produced individuals who were more bandit-like, merchant-like, intellectual-like, and etc. Consider how a tiny number of Jews came to dominate so much of the economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consider how a tiny rabble of Chechen cutthroats were able to intimidate far bigger Russian gangs.

So, it's not surprising it took awhile for the USSR to become a genuine Russian Empire. Up to the 50s, it was largely an empire ruled by non-Russians with greater penchant for assertive will. Indeed, Russians gained power only because the non-Russian elites created a system wherein Russians could be educated and elevated up the Iron Ladder. Russians could use a system but weren’t adept at creating one themselves. Consider how Germans had played a pivotal role in the creation of modern pre-revolutionary Russia. Consider how it took many non-Russians to create the Bolshevik system. And after the fall of communism, Russia handed over privatization(that turned into ‘piratization’) to foreigners, mainly Jewish Americans. Russians felt they couldn't do it themselves.

Another problem with Russians is the persistent strain of barbarism that wastes energy on childish things. When Russians do indulge in crude forms of individuality, they are often silly stuff like swilling excessive amounts of vodka, having street fights, driving around like loons, wrestling bears, dancing on tables, and catching fish with penis. Jews don’t waste their core energies on such silliness. If you have a gallon of gasoline, it should be poured into an engine. Russians douse gas all around and set things on fire just to celebrate and have a good time. Total waste of energy and creativity. True individuality is a smart use of energy with focus and sense of purpose.


As Russia looks to the future, the main conflict will be this:

Russian nationalists and patriots with sounder values & nobler spirit but lacking in individual spark and spirit to take charge and make a difference

VERSUS

Jewish, Homo, and Cuck Globalists with terrible values and subversive mindset but bursting with individual spark and spirit to take charge and make a difference.

It’s like what Israel Shamir wrote of the Lucy Stein gang. Awful people but full of spunk and spirit. A spirited badger can bring down a passive cow. https://www.unz.com/ishamir/lucy-stein-gang-rides-moscow/

Friday, April 27, 2018

The Perverse Logic of Penis de Milo Yiannopoulos — Intersectionality of the Best of Everything deserving of Negromo Bunging

In a way, the World of Milo Yiannopoulos makes perfect, if perverse, sense in the current year of the Holy Three composed of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. In the Milo cult(now somewhat faded), there is the ‘intersectionality’ of Jewish element, Homo element, and Negro element. Also the added element of the ‘Aryan’.

Milo is part-Jewish and possessed of Tribal chauvinism and arrogance. He is a staunch Zionist. He is willing to discuss the reality of Jewish Power but more as bragging rights than as criticism. “We Jews are awesome and powerful.” He is proud of his Jewish ‘intellect’.

But he is also part-Greek and possessed of ‘Classical’ visage. He carries on like he’s a modern day Narcissus, like some homo Greek statue come to life. He’s noticeably vain about his ‘Aryan’ looks. Especially with his fake blond hair, his self-presentation might as well be that of the Nazi Aesthetic Ideal.

And he makes a big fuss about his homosexuality. He mocks the current homosexual culture for its hankering for status and respectability. He revels in flamboyance and provocation that had once defined the ‘gay’ community. He believes homos should be risque, hip, creative, expressive, ingenious, innovative, original, cutting-edge, and full of surprises. Even reckless. Homos should be dancing around golden calves than kneeling before sacred cows. He believes homos are superior in intellect, innovation, and style over predictable and square straights.

Precisely because his fawning narcissism vapes on the ‘intersectionality’ of superiority — Jewish genius, ‘Aryan’ beauty, and homo creativity — , he believes a demigod such as himself is deserving of the ultimate carnal pleasure. It is in the form of a big dong up his bung, and because Negroes got the biggest dongs, Milo’s divine bung rejects all dongs but black ones. That is his own brand of Pop-Nietzschean Faustian Bargain.
In other words, he regards the Negromo(Negro homo) dong as the ideal fit for his golden Jew-homo-aryan bung. Only the best deserves only the best. Jewish genius is the best of genius, homo creativity is the best of creativity, and ‘Aryan’ beauty is the best of beauty. Because Milo has all three, he must be a god. And as a god, he is deserving of the biggest homo-bung pleasure, and it comes from the Negromo dong.

So, there you go. Milo sees himself as the ultimate fulfillment of the intersectionality of the main themes of ‘western’ culture. Jewish power and genius, homo narcissism and flamboyance, Aryan form and beauty, and funky-ass Negro dong up his bung.

This homo stuff is icky but more interesting than straight sexuality from the perspective of sexual politics. In homosexuality, the dynamics are more complicated. In straight sex, men are masculine and women are feminine. Men hump the women. (There is 'pegging' promoted by Cosmo magazine, but I doubt if many men and women indulge in such things.)
But in homo ‘sex’, the dynamics gets twisted and complicated because the one who gets bunged can turn around to bung the guy who bunged him. So, homos have this blend of masculine aggression and feminine guile, which may account for their greater tendency toward nihilism, fantasy, and dangerous deception(like Matt Damon’s character in TALENTED MR. RIPLEY). Homos are not grounded in firm emotions of fixed sexuality. Their nature is inherently ‘disloyal’ and ‘treacherous’(which makes them useful to globalists who push disloyalty to race, culture, and nation) because a homo man betrays his role as a virile male and acts like either a girly fruitkin or machomo bunger of bungs. And a lesbian betrays her sexual biology and acts like a man whose idea of ‘sex’ is grinding her pooter with pooters of other women. Among straight men and women, it is the men who always humps the women. Straight men are faithful to their biological purpose. They got dongs & balls and use them to penetrate and impregnate straight women. And straight women seek out men and play the role of wife and mother. Men do manly things & women do womanly things in the straight world. It's about essential duties and loyalties.

But there is no such certainty, stability, and consistency among homos. After all, even a big Negromo dude surely takes up his bung the dong of a white guy. So, most likely, Milo gets bunged but also bungs the Negromo who is now his ‘husband’. Or, in a vast interracial homo orgy, it is possible, at least in theory, to form an oreo-train bunging stretching for miles on end, even into infinity: Negro bunging a white buy bunging a Negro bunging a white guy bunging a Negro bunging a white guy bunging a Negro ad infinitum. This is all gross, perverse, and ridiculous... but food for thought that we must ponder because people who are capable of such 'sexual' ridiculousness now possess so much privilege and exert so much influence on ideas, culture, and even spirituality in the West dominated by Judea that has appointed and anointed the LGBTQ camp as the new priesthood.

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Desecration of White Heritage is essentially due to Jewish-Tribal factors than Demographic Changes or Ideological Fervor


Some say Confederate and other White Monuments are being removed or desecrated across America because of demographic changes: As the US becomes less white, white monuments are targeted by non-whites. To an extent, maybe.

But consider the following examples that call into question the correlation between demographic change and iconoclasm.

Mao’s revolutionary army united China and kicked out all foreigners in the name of regaining national autonomy. So, under Mao, China was once again China for Chinese. And yet, these very Chinese went about destroying so much of their own national art, texts, architecture, monuments, and treasures. The Cultural Revolution was maybe the biggest orgy of cultural destruction in the 20th century. It was about Chinese culture destroyed by the Chinese.

Also, consider the Anglo-American remembrance of Indian Cultures. American Indians were killed off by disease or guns and pushed westward, finally into dreary Reservations. And yet, Anglo-Americans went about building monuments to these vanquished peoples when the dust settled. These were memorials to Indians erected by white folks who replaced them. So, even as demography favored white settlers over Indian savages, white folks honored the memory of Indians by erecting monuments, naming towns after Indians, and etc.

So, it’s not just about demographics but a state of mind that determines whether cultural markers are erected, preserved, or desecrated.

Anglo-Americans could be ruthless warriors, but they also had a culture of magnanimity, recognition and respect for worthy foes. David Yeagley expounded on this aspect of the White Man. It is possibly rooted in the honor code of the warrior and the Christian virtues of grace and forgiveness(or repentance).

But such mindset seems to be missing among most non-white groups. Too many Jews feel contempt for gentile cultures and want them utterly defiled and desecrated. Blacks only respect ugabuga gangsta thuggery of ‘muh power’ and have no regard for values and culture beyond ‘muh dic*’, ‘muh booty’, ‘muh bling’, and ‘muh badassness’. Muslims can be simple-minded iconoclasts(even though, to their credit, they didn’t destroy all the pagan and infidel heritage in arts and achievements… that is, until the US let loose the hounds of ISIS on secular Arab regimes). And Asians are yellow dog teachers pets who can easily be led into Red Guard mode.

As for whites... they are now deracinated cucks. The lack of fiery resistance on the part of whites(even in the Deep South) to the toppling of Southern Monuments is downright shocking. Such craven cowardice or, worse, total apathy and indifference to the eradication of their own heritage and remembrance of past heroism and tragedy is pathetic indeed.
But then, the globalized ‘muh burger and fries’ culture of the new US has severed the historical and ancestral roots of most Americans. Non-white mass invaders attack whiteness, but they too are severed from their own identities, roots, and heritages. Both whites and non-whites are merging into vapid deracination where most people mainly identify with pop culture. Their only culture is videogames and Negro-dominated sports and rap music.
Granted, most non-whites don't come to America with hatred for whites. That hatred is implanted by Jewish media and academia that saturate entertainment and education with images of Evil Whitey as scapegoat for all problems though, to be sure, non-whites can be villains too as long as they are not Jews, blacks, or homos.

The main anti-white animus is the product of Jewish control of media. In that sense, the main reason for the recent spate of anti-white desecrations are neither primarily demographic or ideological. After all, most blacks in the South didn’t much care about Confederate flags or monuments until recently. The symbols and monuments became an issue with increasing Jewish and ‘neo-carpet-beggar’ takeover of the South. It has accompanied the rise of ‘new conservatives’ such as Nikki Haley who take their cues from Jews. Also, the new Southern White elites are either financial stooges of Jews or were educated in Jewish-dominated elite schools. As such, they lack the soul and spine to call out on the Culture War against the South that is being Afro-ized and ‘Immigrantized’.

A place can change demographically but still let the monuments be. Or if a radical ideology takes hold, it seeks to wipe out everything that is deemed falsely idolatrous. The current Culture War we are seeing in the US isn’t primarily due to demographic or ideological factors. Most Mass Invaders(aka non-white immigrants) who come to the US don’t come with anti-white hatred, nor do they have any wish to knock down statues. Rather, their kids are taught to hate whites and white symbols in schools. They are taught by teachers whose worldview has been shaped by trickle-down anti-white hatred of Jewish elites.

Also, we know the core animating factor isn’t ideological because the targets are usually limited to whatever Jews don’t like. After all, if the New Values are about ‘anti-racism’, why are Emma Lazarus and Immigration celebrated when More Immigration meant more 'racist' ‘genocide’ against American Indians? Also, why don’t Jews fess up to the fact that their immigration patterns have always been White Preferist or White Favorist? In other words, even as Jews bitch about ‘genocide’ and ‘slavery’, they always trailed and followed whites who led the way in creating new civilizations and opportunities, at times even through genocide and slavery. But notice that Jews get ‘passover’ treatment from the ideological fervor despite the fact that Jews played a prominent role in financing Western expansion, slave trade, and imperialism.
True ideology doesn’t work that way as it calls for consistency. Under Bolshevik communism, both Christianity and Judaism were suppressed. And in ideological Red China, even Chinese ‘reactionaries’ came under attack. No one was spared because he was a fellow Chinese.

In contrast, the Culture War in the US always exempts Jews-as-targets. So, even though 'racist' Apartheid South Africa was targeted for sanctions, Israel was allowed to do as it pleases despite its greater violence against Arabs and development of nuclear weapons(which it even shared with Apartheid South Africa). Even though Joe McCarthy was reviled by Jews for violation of Constitutional Rights, Jews play loose with the law to shut down and effectively censor anyone they don’t like, e.g. Alt Right at Charlottesville and on the internet.
And even as so many Confederate monuments have been removed or destroyed, the ones of Benjamin Judah remain untouched because they are of a Jewish man. So, even though demographic changes and ideological fervor play a part in the desecration of white history, they are not the main impetus behind the violence.
It is Jewish tribal manipulation of hatred in order to administer lashings on white identity and consciousness so that white pride and prestige will be broken to the point where whites feel they have choice but to just surrender to the supremacist will of Jews. To be sure, the most effective way of breaking white will and unity(most crucially of white men and white women) is Jungle Fever and ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), but it also helps to smash Southern symbols of White Resistance against the Biological Slavery under Blacks. After all, even though whites did force blacks into social slavery and used racial discrimination, the Confederacy and Jim Crow were also acts of white resistance against the Thug-Advantage of stronger, tougher, and more aggressive blacks. In other words, black-and-white relations were never simply black-and-white but held many grey areas.

Monday, April 23, 2018

Just Say It is RACE-IST AND TRUE or R&T. Associate Race-ism with Truth.


Even after so much ink has been spilled over how Political Correctness robs us of reason, liberty, integrity, and courage, we still can’t have honest discussions of world problems because the vast majority of people adhere to the PC definition and deployment of the term ‘racist’. The word has such power over us because nearly everyone, from ‘left’ to ‘right’, agree on its dubious meaning. So, even as there are increasing numbers of people who deny that they are ‘racist’ or hurl back the accusation at the other side, almost no one dares to deconstruct the term and examine why it is so powerful.

People fail to understand that the term was devised to suck out all the air in the room so that it can have only one meaning and nullify all other meanings. In other words, ‘racism’ is like a terminological black hole that will not tolerate honest discussion of race. Why would that be? It is because a neutral sounding word has been defined in the most extreme way. Most of you will say that ‘racism’ means racial hatred, racial chauvinism, racial supremacism, irrational racial hostility, blind racial animus, or even racial genocide. Now, why is this a problem? Because a neutral-sounding term has been overloaded with strong meanings.
Now, suppose extreme racial views had been associated with a term ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’. Thus, we can agree that some people may have extreme prejudice or extreme hostility based on racial differences. After all, ‘radical’ means purist and fanatical. And ‘extremism’ means an abnormal stress on certain inclinations or tendencies. So, if a term like ‘radical racism’ or ‘racial extremism’ carried the burden of ultra-hardline views on race, we can have rational and sensible discussion of the reality of race and racial differences. Indeed, under such rules, the term ‘racism’ or ‘race-ism’ would mean what it should mean. As ‘ism’ means belief or credo, ‘race-ism’ would mean belief in the reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness or awareness.

Now, race-ism could become extreme or radical, but it doesn’t need to be... no more than a religious person must be a fanatical nut like Jim Jones or a socialist must be a radical communist. Likewise, belief in racial reality doesn’t mean one has to be a Nazi or a member of the KKK, Nation-of-Islam, or Jewish Defense League(an outfit created by the Zionist zealot Meir Kahane who was so extreme that even fellow Jews renounced him). Some might go that way, but then, one can become crazy about anything. After all, people love food, but that doesn’t mean they have to become fatty-fatkins. And people like being slim, but that doesn’t mean people who watch their weight are fated to be anorexics.

Anyway, because a neutral-seeming term like ‘racism’(race + ism) has been defined as an extremist ideology, it’s difficult to have an honest and truthful discussion of race. After all, the formulation of the term ‘racism’ keeps reminding us that ANY ism(belief) about race must be extreme and pathological. Some have tried to solve this problem by using terms such as ‘racialism’ or ‘race realism’, but that only complicates matters. Such tactics are defensive when, if anything, true race-ists must go on the offensive and stop backing down. The term ‘racism’ must be rehabilitated, just like innocent victims of tyranny. The only alteration I would recommend is to spell and pronounce it as ‘race-ism’ to reiterate that the word should mean race + ism = belief in reality of race & possible racial differences and the necessity or inevitability of racial consciousness. For more on this matter, go to this link: http://dailyandreaostrov.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-im-only-true-race-ist-how-misuse-of.html.

Anyway, for the time being, what steps can we take to slowly steer the ship to redefine ‘racism’ or race-ism properly? I propose the ‘Race-ist-and-True’ Rule. If you make a true statement about racial reality and racial differences OR exhibit natural tendency of racial consciousness & solidarity, don’t ever back down when you are accused of ‘racism’. If you try to explain that you’re not ‘racist’, you’ve lost the argument there and then. You’ve put yourself in a defensive and pleading corner, as if the other side has the right to judge you while you feel a need to defend and justify yourself. This is because what should be a neutral term has been rigged by Jewish radical agenda and political correctness to mean something extreme and evil. For that reason, ANY belief in race or expression of racial identity(at least if you’re white and gentile) is automatically smeared as something extreme.
Now, what is so extreme about believing that evolution created different racial groupings of human beings? It is so obvious to any honest pair of eyes. What is so extreme about noticing racial differences? We can see it all around in sports, crime, and all sorts of behavior. And what is so evil about a people having a sense of racial identity, unity, and solidarity? It seems rather natural given that humans are genetically programmed to judge things based on sight and other visible signals. But because the mere terminology of race + ism has been defined as the most heinous form of extremism, even people making the most obvious observations or statements about race and racial differences must be on guard against charges of ‘racism’. With nearly all the institutions and powers operating in such PC manner, is anything possible to stem the tide of this rabid and virulent Judeo-Nazi agenda?

Yes, even if it’s an upward struggle. Also, the first tentative steps are the most important in any movement. It means you are serious and willing to move forward with the truth. And once we reach the top of the hill(like the Train that Could), it will be easy coasting from there on, with historical gravity being on our side.

So, what exactly is it that should be said when our perfectly reasonable views are accused of ‘racism’? First, I’m talking of rational and sane statements about racial reality, racial differences, and racial identity. I’m not talking of clown antics of people like Andrew Anglin who will say ANYTHING to trigger people and gain notoriety. Their views really are extreme, demented, or unserious(and mainly for attention). There can't be any moral defense for such stupidity and dementedness though we must defend speech rights to say offensive things.
As for those of us who dare to speak the truth about race & racial differences and have facts, truth, courage, and integrity on our side, the proper way to respond to accusations of ‘racism’ is to say that our views are ‘race-ist and true’. That is the right way. Don’t try to deny that you’re ‘racist’. Don’t play by their word game that was long ago rigged to favor them... just like a socialist can’t win any argument IF even the most moderate socialism is made synonymous with Stalinism, Maoism, and Khmer Rouge.

Likewise, a capitalist will be in a hopeless position IF the base terminology of ‘capitalism’ is defined to mean Scrooge-like greed and pathological selfishness. Indeed, communist nations defined capitalism in just such manner, and that made it nearly impossible to lay out a rational case for free markets. According to communist terminological rules, the term ‘capitalism’ could never mean a neutral theory of economics based on market dynamics. It couldn’t be approached rationally and judiciously because it had an albatross of ‘greed’ and ‘exploitation’ around its neck.

Now, capitalism CAN be exploitative and ugly, but just because a system is capitalist doesn’t mean it is ultra-libertarian where the ONLY thing that matters is greed & profits and nothing else.
But in a communist nation, there were few things worse than being called a ‘capitalist-roader’ or ‘bourgeois’. Communist terminology fixed it so that ‘capitalism’ could only mean utterly greedy exploitation and ‘bourgeoisie’ could only mean the reactionary exploitative class. A rational, balanced, and empirical discussion of capitalism or the bourgeoisie’s role in history was nearly impossible because those very terms were loaded with moral contempt and loathing.
And in the Current West, ‘racism’ has the same kind of effect. Thus, even if someone like Charles Murray wants to calmly discuss the subject of race, it is denounced immediately as ‘racist’, and then any views about racial differences between whites and blacks is associated with slavery, Jim Crow, and lynching. This hysteria would have us believe that because racial differences had been invoked the past to justify certain institutions, any idea of racial differences must be to restore slavery.
This is like someone in a communist system insisting that any argument in favor of capitalism and market economics must be evil because, at least in his mind, anything associated with markets and profits must be about the greedy rich hogging all the wealth, sadistic henchmen tyrannizing workers, giant smokestacks belching out black soot to choke the proletariat, and innocents beaten down with truncheons. The radical stigmatization of the term ‘capitalism’ made it difficult for reformers to call for more efficient market economics because their reputations and careers(and even lives) could be ruined by accusations of being ‘bourgeois reactionary’ or ‘capitalist roader’. Even basic market reforms and limited privatization that might boost the economy became taboo in many quarters because, according to the communist terminology, there could never be a moderate and balanced form of capitalism. No, all forms of capitalism were extreme, exploitative, & evil, and that was that, and there was nothing more to be said.
People in the West face the same trouble with the term ‘racist’. As Charles Murray and many others found out, there are too many people brainwashed by PC into believing that rational ideas about race and racial differences are simply not possible. There can only be one view of race, and it is ‘nazi’.

Now, there are idiotic Nazi types who do espouse extreme and radical views on race. Calling them ‘racist’ would be correct to the extent that they do hold views on racial reality and racial differences. But the difference is their views are indeed radical and extreme, and more importantly, there is no way that sane and rational people who believe in racial reality and racial differences have views that resemble the lunacies of Neo-Nazism. So, my advice is not for radical racists who are prone to saying idiotic things. As so much of what they say is numbnuts and retarded, I have no wish to represent them or defend them. Fools who dig themselves into holes can’t be helped.

But, what if you’re a sane, rational, and honest person? What if your views on racial reality and racial differences are fully in accordance with known facts & data and are indeed in alignment with what any honest pair of eyes can see from racial reality in any society. If you’re that person and if what you’ve said makes good sense, then the worst thing you can do is deny that you are ‘racist’ when that charge is thrown at you. If your race-ism is valid & true and if you’re accused of ‘racism’, the proper response is to say that your views are ‘race-ist and true’.
This puts the accuser in a bind. After all, truth has the advantage of prestige. How can falsehood be better than the truth? Those who argue for the Noble Lie will lose soon enough because no one wants to believe that he or she must stick to demonstrable falsehoods for the ‘higher good’. People want to believe that their righteousness is based on rightness about reality. The rabid dogs of PC want to believe that science, reasons, and facts are on their side. To be sure, there are some PC hacks who argue that truth about race must be suppressed for the ‘higher good’. But such argument simply cannot stand for long. It’s like the Geocentrism of the Catholic Church couldn’t withstand the truth of real astronomy that placed the Sun at the center. If PC admits that it favors lies over truth in the name of the ‘higher good’, it will be admitting that PC 'goodness' has no legs of truth to stand on. It must be propped up by crutches of deception, the logic of which is not unlike withholding the truth about Santa Claus to little children.

So, truth beats all in the end. Those with truth on their side merely need to speak honestly because truth backs them up. In contrast, those opposed to the truth must resort to lies, propaganda, hysteria, or banal homilies. Indeed, the reason why so many Jews(in media and academia), Antifa Janissary types, and cuck-collaborators are so triggered by rational race-ists is due to their abject fear that they may indeed be wrong on facts and truth, thus on the wrong side of history. Not only are racial differences so obvious to the naked eye but new genetic studies are showing that group differences among various races are all too real. PC hacks are now so desperate that they go beyond calling people ‘racist’ and call them ‘nazi’ as well. (This is rich coming from Jewish globalists especially because, if we were to judge people by what they DO as opposed to what they SAY, Jewish Power is the most nazi-like force in the world as it indulges in Jewish supremacism, warmongering & imperialism, politics of paranoia & scapegoating, cult of megalomania, and even genocidal tendencies.) PC hacks hope to shut down debate by screaming ‘racist’, and that is supposed to decide there-and-then that your race-ist views are false and invalid.
But if you do have truth and facts on your side, you should respond to the charge of ‘racism’ by clarifying that your views are, yes, ‘race-ist’ and also true. This way, the term ‘race-ism’ is gradually, step by step, associated with the courageous will to speak the truth and counter the platitudes of PC. Prog idiots use ‘racist’ as shortcut to invalidate those who won’t get on with the program, and they gained much power by convincing so many people that, yes indeed, any view about racial differences had to be about irrational ‘hatred’ and ‘supremacism’.

And PC got the upperhand because even people with rational and sane views on race, upon being accused of ‘racism’, denied the charge and tried to explain themselves on ground of science and facts. But the fact is they never had a useful term for their rational position on race. Because the neutral formulation of race + ism has been defined to mean something extreme(and possibly the most evil thing in the universe), people with rational views on race simply didn't know how to characterize their positions. Perhaps, they could have used the term ‘genetist’(as opposed to geneticist who is a researcher of genetics). A genetist could mean someone who believes in the genetic or biological roots of human existence. But ‘genetist’ is too broad and would apply to all life forms. As we are mostly involved with human affairs, it made sense to winnow down to categories and concepts with the greatest relevance to us. And race is of great importance because evolution has been at work to create different human groups that really do vary generally in appearance, body size, intelligence, strength, speed, temperament, and other factors. Therefore, we must stick to the term that addresses the reality of race, and that term must be race + ism or race-ism. If race is real(and it is), then it means there are real differences among races. That is the truth, and we prefer the truth over falsehood. So, it means we are race-ist and truthful. Then, if some PC dog barks at us and accuses us of ‘racism’, we must simply say that, yes, our positions are race-ist-and-true. PC dolts assume that the mere accusation of ‘racism’ has a magically discrediting and disinfecting effect on people who espouse 'hateful' views.

But they are unprepared to deal with people who dare to point out that race-ism = truth. If we stand our ground and insist that our views are race-ist-and-true, then the other side will find itself in a bind. They are so used to ‘winning arguments’ with that magic word ‘racist’ that they've grown mentally lazy. Our enemies are accustomed to people cowering or backing down because PC has long held that ‘racism’ = extreme views on race = falsehood.
But we can easily demonstrate that race-ism is valid and true. Facts are really on our side. Races do exist, and the differences are not just skin-deep. So, our race-ism is rational and sane. Furthermore, because we have the facts on our side, our views are race-ist-and-true. Because we stand our ground and associate race-ism with truth, it is now up to the PC side to prove that our race-ist views are untrue. But this is difficult because the evidence of racial differences is so everywhere and so obvious. Furthermore, the advancement of genetic science is beginning to prove that differences among racial groups go the roots of our DNA.
So, there you go, the idea of Race-ist-and-True will be difficult to beat. Then, the next time you are accused of ‘racism’ by PC dogs and dolts, don’t cower and sweat as you try to persuade them that you’re not ‘racist’. Instead, tell them that your views are Race-ist-and-True. Insist that truth is on your side precisely because you are a race-ist who has the will and courage to look at the world with honest eyes. See what happens. Race-ist and True or R&T.

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Meritocratic Fallacy — Choosing the Brightest doesn’t necessarily choose the Best — Problems of Symbolic Morality over Real Morality among the Powerful



In the most basic sense, meritocracy is the fairest and most effective way of selecting the most capable. This is most obvious in sports. The fastest runner is the fastest runner. Fastest swimmer is the fastest swimmer. The heaviest-lifter is the heaviest-lifter. We can’t argue with the results. But, we also know that the most capable are not necessarily the best in terms of morality and character. We know that many top athletes are scummy lowlifes. Who can forget the saga of OJ? Still, there is an idolatrous aspect to our nature that wants to believe that the most talented, most skilled, or most able is also the best in character. This is why most action movies have heroes who are not only the best-looking but the toughest. There is an idealized combination of attractiveness, ability, and morality. Good guys look good and are really the best. The handsome hero of SHANE really is the fastest gun in the West. Even so, we don’t expect too many athletes or some such to be paragons of morality and ethics. (But then, in our nihilistic age, many thug athletes and rappers are admired precisely because they spit on norms of morality and decency.)

But what about the elites in law, academia, government, enterprise, and media? Unlike athletes who merely need to prove their mettle in brute strength, people who succeed with their minds must gain knowledge, attend prestigious schools, and demonstrate worth on many levels of human relations. Because education is about the teaching of history, literature, science, ideas, and culture, we would like to believe that those who won by intellectual meritocracy are indeed the best kind of people. Not only the smartest but the wisest and most judicious. After all, they read so many books and gained so much knowledge. Unlike sports where brutal performance is all that counts, academics isn’t only about getting good grades but attaining higher and deeper understanding of many facets of truth. Or so we like to think.

Now, there are certain inbuilt virtues within meritocracy itself. Any serious student must have the simple virtues of effort, diligence, discipline, commitment, and stamina. Without such habits and attitudes, one cannot do well in school(unless one happens to be a super-genius). But simple virtues are just that. They are useful in the service of attaining certain goals, but they don’t reveal the higher truth or deeper meaning. After all, simple virtues can be in the service of an evil system. Dutiful and sober men can work hard to support the system. The men in the German film DAS BOOT are high in simple virtues. They are men of commitment and patriotism. But they ultimately serve an evil system.

Higher virtue arises from the question of "What kind of power am I serving?" The main character of LIVES OF OTHERS is a hard-worker and has simple virtues. But for most of his life, he never asked whether what he is doing is worth doing. He's been a ‘good soldier’ who followed orders and did his duties. He has simple virtues but is blind to the full moral implications of his work... until something alters the course of his life.

This is worth keeping in mind because there is no guarantee that those who study hard really care about anything but status, privilege, and power. They may read books, do homework, pass exams, go to good schools, get degrees, and get good jobs, BUT they may not have cared about truth, justice, or meaning. Education for them was just a means of gaining credentials to have the Good Life. They are like the vapid yuppies of AMERICAN PSYCHO(horrible movie).

Now, one may argue that the very process of education will change a person. Surely, no matter how cynical or materialistic one may be, wouldn't he be moved, inspired, and transformed by the great knowledge that he absorbs from literature, history, psychology, humanities, and maybe even some courses on philosophy?
True enough, but then, is there a lasting impact of education on most people? Consider Billy Boy Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Two high-IQ people who read many books and attended top colleges. Then, why are they so shallow, cynical, scummy, vile, stupid, trashy, hideous, insipid, and despicable? What did they really learn from all those books and all those courses? Despite their high intelligence and credentials, why are they so lacking in ethics, conscience, virtue, balance, wisdom, and basic sanity? We would like to believe that people so smart who went to top schools and learned from the best professors and read many more books than we did would be people of genuine worth. But it seems the ONLY thing they ever cared about was egotism, vanity, privilege, fortune, and fame.

So, what does that tell you? Meritocracy in academics may, more or less, choose the brightest but far from the best. In the 50s and 60s, there was the idea that the best-and-the-brightest were going to do wonderful things for America. But even as many such people were indeed the brightest, they were not the best(in character). Robert McNamara was the poster-child of the divergence of brightness and best-ness. And after the fiasco of the Vietnam War, he came to realize this and felt bad for the rest of his life. Well, at least he had a conscience about it. But look around today. So many people who have high IQ, went to best schools, got the credentials, and were chosen for high positions turn out to be total scum. And even after they destroy everything, there is no sign of conscience. Look at the intellectuals and officials around Billy Boy Clinton and George Dubious Bush. Look at the brightest bulbs around Obama who helped him destroy nations around the world.

Some of these people went to the best schools. They got credentials and prestige. And yet, they act like gangsters, sociopaths, degenerates, and monsters. And someone explain how any sane, sensible, and moral person can endorse something like Homomania? Indeed, consider that Jews have the highest IQ and got the most education. And yet they are the biggest proponents of degenerate Homomania that conflates homo fecal penetration and tranny pud-cutting with the ‘rainbow’ that is then associated with cookies, sodas, and churches. Did Jews gain so much knowledge to peddle that kind of nonsense?

It may be that some people of ability will gravitate toward power out of ideals. They hope to gain power to do what is good for the people and nation. But the system has a way of choosing the talented-and-vapid over the talented-and-valid.
After all, one thing that becomes apparent to anyone seeking power is that the path is compromised. Even as doors open to people of ability and talent, they must also kiss a lot of ass, compromise their principles, keep their mouths shut, spout platitudes, and learn to go along. Such are necessary in any social setting, but it either turns idealists into cynics or exiles. As cynics, they do gain power eventually but come to care for nothing but the power. As exiles from the corrupt system, they maintain their ideals or integrity but they gain no power.
Generally speaking, the system seeks talent-and-vanity than talent-and-integrity. Those with real integrity have a serious problem rising up the ladder of power because they must remain silent, tell lies, or dirty their hands. They must play the game and keep their mouths shut. The must accede to the 'omerta' not unlike in GOODFELLAS.

In contrast, those who are talented and mainly into power for vanity don’t care if they must make compromises and even embrace corruption. They just want to be among the Winners and Players. And this may account as to why so much of the Deep State has genuine deep talent but is so utterly shallow when it comes to ideals, ethics, scruples, and principles. The filtering effect of power tends to keep out those with integrity in favor of those who will say or do anything to gain power. So, we have a world of Samantha Powers, John Boltons, John Yoos, James Comeys, Donald Rumsfelds, Hillary Clintons, Dick Cheneys, Victoria Nulands, and other such scumbags who aren’t troubled in the least by all the mess they cause around the world. They just want to be with the Winners and play the game of power.

But actually it’s even worse than that. These lowlife scum and sleazebags are so full of themselves and think themselves noble, honorable, brilliant, and amazing. Those obsessed with privilege, status, and power tend to be narcissistic by nature. Also, they conflate meritocracy & credentials with morality & credence. Because they went to fancy schools and got fancy degrees and rubbed shoulders with 'respectable' peoples around the world, they think they are the best of the best. And because they often wield power above the law, they feel as if they’re imbued with divine powers of higher wisdom and understanding. So, while the rest of us should be judged by the law, they are above the law because they are so... special. Just like the hands of gods can’t be hampered by the laws of mortals, the power of the Deep State cannot be hamstrung by the banal laws of the hoi polloi, the ‘little people’. While such a view might be deemed as arrogant and corrupt, those in the Deep State believe it is their duty to be above the law because their role is SO VERY IMPORTANT. So, they tell themselves that they must bend and twist the law for a ‘higher loyalty’.
Also, there is the mostly compliant and complementary media that works with the Deep State. And there are think-tanks and the academia made up of pretty much the same kind of people, and they are all into "If you scratch my back, I will scratch your back." So, even though most people in the Deep State are really shallow, venal, and vile goons, there is a vast cottage industry to shower them with praises and prizes. Sometimes, it can be downright ridiculous, as when Obama awarded Joe Biden with the Medal of Freedom. Imagine that, the president giving the vice-president the award.
Perhaps, there might be more of a balance IF both parties were equally represented in the deeply entrenched institutions of Washington D.C., but the fact is the DC and the Deep State are now an almost entirely a one-party system where most people are into clone-think, worshiping the same icons and idols. Notice that Pompeo in the Senate questioning was asked about his views on ‘gay marriage’. Homomania is sacrosanct in all areas of the Deep State because the Jewish top dogs made it so. Because Homomania is considered sacred, it is easy for any sleazebag in the Deep State to signal that he too is part of the holy crowd. He needs only to wave the homo flag. Or spout off platitudes about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ or yammer something about how they are inspired by MLK and etc.

So, the system is rigged not only to favor the talented-and-unscrupulous but also to make the unscrupulous feel that they are moral paragons and agents on the side of angels. Without such manipulative psycho-mechanisms, members of the Deep State will just feel utter cynicism as gangsters, crooks, and liars. Such people cannot maintain morale for long.
So, the secret of the Deep State is to attract those without scruples but to make them feel that they are the most scrupulous. We see these traits in sleazebags like John Brennan and James Comey. Both are hollow men, empty suits when it comes to principles. They are pathological liars and crooks who will pull anything to serve the interest of the Deep State. BUT they sincerely believe themselves to be on the side of angels BECAUSE the system showers praise on those who stick with the Official Narrative and Sacred Cows of the Current Year.
People like Edward Snowden cannot go very far in the System because they have too much of a conscience. Comey may claim to have a ‘higher loyalty’, but it really means his loyalty is to the Deep State. In contrast, Snowden had a deeper loyalty to an idea of justice. He spilled the beans on the Deep State and, as such, paid a huge price. The system praises the Comeys and McCabes of the world while trying to destroy people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who see the need for transparency in the Deep State of the lone superpower that, since the Cold War, has grown ever more arrogant, aggressive, and demented.

It is the logic of power. Power wants those of ability who will serve the system loyally. Power wants technocrats and commissars than truth-seekers and idealists. But the Power also needs to maintain the morale(if not true morality) of its servants by making them feel that they are on the right side of history.
It was the same in communist nations. The system obviously wanted yes-men and sycophants who would never ask too many questions. But the goons also had to be convinced that they were the most virtuous because, without such conceit, they might just grow awfully cynical and operate only as gangsters. The system wants dogs that believe in the nobility of service to the master.

This isn’t easy to do because the Power(of whatever nation or ideology) is always corrupt, compromised, and dirty. It is very difficult to get close to power and keep one’s principles. It may be that idealists hope to gain power to do good, but by the time they’ve come close to power, they’ve become the dirty Power. Imagine a Broom that is to be used to clean up society. But to get to the Broom, one has to wade through all the filth. By the time one finally gets to the center to wield the broom, one is as dirty as the former holders of the broom. And there is the realization that the broom itself is so dirty that using it will only spread than clean the filth.
This is how the Boomer generation idealists all turned out. It’s a sad story really. Those who loathed Richard Nixon became worse than Nixon. And their main reason for going after Donald Trump, no saint himself, is because Trump, despite his own sleaziness and filth, poses a threat to the ways of the Deep State, for which Hillary was like the Queen Bee to protect and serve. To the Deep State drones, Trump is like a bear that messes up the Deep State honeycombs. Trump’s victory sent out a massive signal among the drones to bring back Hillary and kill Trump. So, he’s been stung from many sectors of the Deep State.

Because the Power is so corrupt and compromised, the most effective means by which it instills drones with a sense of righteousness and holiness is by promoting symbolic morality, which is so much easier than real morality. Symbolic morality is characterized by icons, idols, mantras, rites, and rituals.
It was always easier to be a symbolic Christian than a real Christian. A real Christian had to seriously regard the teachings of Jesus, examine one’s own failings, sincerely seek redemption, and seek personal salvation in the eyes of God. In contrast, a symbolic Christian merely needed to wear a Crucifix, hold a rosary, say a bunch of ‘Hail Mary’s, and attend certain services. Michael Corleone is no real Christian in THE GODFATHER, but he is a good symbolic Christian who donates generously to the Catholic Church and attends the ritual that makes him godfather to his sister’s child. Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church came to favor symbolic Christianity over real Christianity, which found new hope with Protestantism, which, however, also succumbed to new concoctions of rituals and symbolism... or just grew tired because how can spiritual movement define itself as a ‘protest’ forever when it’s become so deeply entrenched in the Order and the Power.

Anyway, symbolism means never having to say you’re sorry. So, never mind if you were one of the Teutonic Knights in Russia or Crusaders in the Holy Land. Never mind all the brutality and violence you carried out. Never mind all the un- or anti-Christian acts you’ve committed. As long as you stick to symbolic Christianity, you can tell yourself that you carried out the will of God. After all, your battle shield had a sign of the Cross. And before charging into battle, you knelt and held your sword like a Cross and prayed to God. You might have even sung a hymn with other warriors. And after sacking the city and raping women and killing children, you may have offered a prayer to God in a Church. Thus, by making the symbolic gestures, you can feel blessed and righteous in your violence. And you can conveniently forget that so much of what you did went against REAL CHRISTIAN teachings.
This is why symbolism is so appealing. Consider the studio executive in HAIL CAESAR! by the Coen Brothers.

In many ways, he acts like a gangster and henchman. He is ruthless, cunning, and not above using bribes and blackmail to keep people silent. He’s about making the system run smoothly as possible. And yet, he feels himself to be a good man. Why? He goes to Church and make confessions before a priest. Of course, it’s about trivial stuff like his failure to stop smoking, but the rituals makes him feel as a man of God.

The Deep State is secular but paves over its gangsterism, corruption, and venality with its own version of Symbolic Morality. Gee, the New and Improved FBI must be noble because its agents must make a pledge to the MLK statue. James Comey thinks himself a goody-good man because he compares himself to the attorney in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. And he must be a goody-good man because Obama, the historic black president, showered him with praise. It’s all symbolism. Never mind Obama the real guy is a sleazebag who shilled for Jews to bail out Wall Street and to destroy nations hated by Jews or Israel. He has magical aura because of the symbolism of being the ‘clean cut black guy’ and the ‘historic first black president’. So, never mind what he really is. Just fixate on what he symbolizes. He’s supposed to represent the fulfillment of the Dream that was cut short by the death of JFK, Malcolm X, RFK, and MLK. He’s supposed to be all those things, with a touch of Sidney Poitier-ness. In reality, what was Obama but a punk? As president, what was his idea of moral progress? Worship of homos and trannies. And what was his foreign policy? The destruction of nations at the behest of Judeo-Nazis.
We’ve heard the counterculture mythology many times that the Vietnam War and the Cold War could have been averted IF John F. Kennedy, MLK, and RFK had not been killed by the evil Deep State. How ironic that Obama, the fulfillment of the Dream, started a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, spread wars all over the Middle East, pulled off a coup in Ukraine, and became a compliant favorite of the Deep State. But never mind all that. Just focus on the symbolism.

The emptiness of symbolic morality can be seen in James Comey’s wife. She was a Hillary supporter and was so very angry over Hillary’s loss because she so badly wanted a ‘first woman president’. Again, it’s symbolic morality over real morality. Never mind what Hillary Clinton really did as Secretary of State. She acted like a gangster and did the bidding of the EOJ(the Empire of Judea) to destroy Libya and spread terror and war all over the Middle East. Millions of people had their lives destroyed as a result. Never mind her long history of corruption. Never mind her total lack of scruples. Never mind her arrogance, contempt, and vileness. The only thing that matters to Comey’s vapid, shallow, and disgusting wife is that Hillary would have been the ‘first woman president’. So, her symbolism trumps all other considerations.

This is how PC operates. It has no use for real morality or truth. Rather, it icon-izes or idolizes certain groups as magical, special, or deserving. So, if the military promotes a black woman to the rank of general, that must be good because of its symbolism. Never mind if she really deserved the title or if she, along with everyone else, is being used to fight immoral Wars for Israel. Or consider how we were supposed to praise Trump's decision to lob missiles into Syria in 2017 because a female naval officer was involved in the operation. PC symbolic morality. A feminist soldier pushed a button, so it must have been a blessed act.

Or, never mind how corrupt and sick the Deep State is. Hey, it appointed some holy homo to some important position. It is a game played by both sides. So, the vile GOP goes for the symbolic morality of being the best friend of Israel. Since Jews are supposedly the Holy Holocaust People and Israel is the Holy Land promised to Jews, the GOP is supposedly righteous and moral whenever it is associated with the symbolism of Jewishness. When morality shifts from a matter of personal responsibility and individual conscience to rites and rituals of symbolic signaling, society becomes as corrupt as when the Catholic Church was selling ‘indulgences’. Once sin was altered from a reality to a ‘symbol’, it could be bought and sold, like commodities in a stock market. (It is all the more dangerous today because the most powerful group in the US, the Jews, cannot be touched. In contrast, while past Wasp elites held much pride and prestige, they were not seen as holy, and therefore, it was fair game to notice their power and call foul on it. This had a restraining and reforming effect. But try to speak truth to Jews, blacks, and Homos. It'd be like sacrilege since they are the Holy Three.)

James Comey is a sleazebag but thinks himself so holy-shmoly because the ‘historic black president’ anointed him. And his wife thinks she’s such a noble person because she so passionately wanted a ‘first woman president’. Never mind that they are preening and privileged members of a vile, venal, mendacious, and murderous community that concocts policies to turn the world upside down at the behest of Judeo-Nazis and soulless corporations, the bottom line of which is more profits-at-any-cost. As long as they got the Proper Symbolism, they don't care. They think they own goody-goodness.

We have a pretty effective way of meritocracy. Despite the problems of Affirmative Action, for the most part the System does a pretty effective job of selecting and pooling the best in talent. But it has done an atrocious job of favoring the ethical-talented over unethical-talented. If anything, the Power tends to push away anyone with any integrity, honesty, and true morality based on facts. Political Correctness or PC has made this problem much worse. Though ostensibly an agent of justice, its dogmatic formula of predetermined Right and Wrong means that everyone just stick to the script, not unlike in Communist systems where people could not question the ‘scientific’ and ‘moral’ infallibility of Marxism-Leninism itself.
PC makes it very difficult for anyone in the academia, media, and government to speak honestly about Jewish Power, black pathology & crime, homo degeneracy, and female hysteria. PC morality is essentially symbolism-centered around icon-ized identities of holy victimhood. So, Jews are eternal victims of Holocaust. Blacks are sacred victims of slavery, and MLK is bigger than God and Jesus. Homos are angels, and if you say otherwise, you are a ‘homophobe’. And women, especially white women, are eternal victims of Evil White Men like Haven Monahan and must be protected from evil white men by... noble black man. ROTFL.

Reality is very different from the Sacro-Narrative and the Grand Delusion, but the power of symbolism can be such that it makes people hallucinate False Realities. Consider the symbolic power of the TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD narrative. America has changed so much since the 1950s, but we are still supposed to believe that redemptive white folks must do something to save poor helpless Negroes from the KKK lynchmob. While we live in the reality of the 21st century when so many white folks are suffering and being physically attacked by blacks, our sense of reality comes from Jewish-controlled TV and movies that define hyper-reality for us. Also, the False Reality of TV trespasses into our living room and smuggles PC symbolism into our brains while robbing us of our critical faculties, especially as TV shows rely as much on manipulative use of music and other visceral effects.

Thus, we have a world where meritocracy is rewarded ONLY IF it is without integrity. Consider journalism. What is the chance of anyone being hired IF he were to raise truly provocative questions about what is really going on? To work in journalism, one has to adhere to the PC rules of the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos. (Women are holy ONLY IF they can be construed as victims of the Evil White Male, the Haven Monahans of the World.) The fact that David Reich had to close his book on DNA and racial differences with so much PC tripe goes to show that daring to speak the truth is like walking through a minefield. One wrong word, and you can be blown away and ruined forever.
This is really an immoral war on truth and liberty, but PC is seen as moral because of its symbolism. Once certain groups have been ‘sacralized’, facts and reason no longer matter. They are forever haloed in association with a certain event or condition in past history. So, Jews are Holocaust People no matter what they do. Even a black thug-rapist is a Holy Slave person. Even ‘hate hoaxes’ aren’t so bad IF in the service of spreading the message about the Holy Three. It’s like the Catholic Church wink-wink tolerated all those phony ‘miracles’ on grounds that they boosted hope among the faithful. 'Hate Hoaxes' might as well be called 'hate miracles'.

PC is really a form of virtue-vanity and, as such, is about empty calories. Indeed, fake virtue is worse than no virtue because it lulls us into thinking we do have virtue. But look at the modern world remade by the false virtue of PC. There is moral and cultural cancer all around resulting from the radical and mindless worship of everything Jewish, black, or homo OR with anything associated with nonsensical sanctimony about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, which in reality, comes down to the crazy notion that all nations except Israel should welcome Invasion and Replacement by hordes of foreigners who come to leech off the wealth. Unless we can create a New Reality that combines meritocracy of ability with ‘ethicracy’ of truth and reason(backed up by courage and spine), there is no hope for the future.

Friday, April 20, 2018

Drasilist Principle of the Need to Grow Both Ways — The More We Move Forward, the More We Need to Look Backward

In the current state of political discourse, it’s as if we have only two choices: Conservatism that looks backward and Liberalism that looks forward. Looking backward has its advantages because the past is a treasure trove of legends, lessons, traditions, and heritage. Especially if a civilization is steeped in written memory, the past is indeed a rich country. But looking forward also has its advantages. It searches for new possibilities, discoveries, and achievements. If someone only learned from the past, he might do pretty well but he will be stalled in the status quo, like Ottomans under Islamic orthodoxy or East Asia under Confucian dogma. But if someone only looked to the future, he might become unmoored, lost, adrift, and disoriented. The problem of arch-conservative order is the fear of change lest it upset the sacred balance or the existing ‘harmony’. The problem of ultra-liberal (dis)order is the foolhardy embrace of fads and fashions until culture becomes vain, shallow, and trivial(like so much of the Current West where many grown-ups are obsessed with tattoos & piercings and where many educated people think the highest value is Homomania.
In contrast to such trivialism is the deep-rooted traditionalism of Iranian Muslims, Orthodox Christians, and zealously religious Jews. However, even though they are deeply rooted in tradition, they are prisoners of dogma and the fear of the unknown. The worst example of Liberalism gone bonkers was the crazy community of Jim Jones, a heretical Christian cult that practiced all the platitudes of Love, Tolerance, and Diversity. In recent times, a terrible example of Conservatism gone bonkers was the Taliban that demolished Buddhist statues in Afghanistan out of strict adherence to Islamic laws.

But why does everything have to be seen as a dichotomy? Why are so many people prone to thinking in terms of cops and robbers, as if one has to be either ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’, only ‘backward-looking’ or ‘forward-looking’? This is even stranger if we consider that even most liberals are partly conservative and most conservatives are partly liberal. After all, even though universities are said to be ‘liberal’ or even ‘radical’ places, their functions are also profoundly conservative. Universities exist to store, preserve, guard, and transmit the glories of past knowledge. If you attend art school, you learn of the history of art. If you study literature, you read the great masters. If you learn history, you read and ponder about the past. If you study philosophy, you must understand the history of ideas. If you study science, you are taught not only the latest theories but how the history of science led to current conclusions. Also, colleges are inherently hierarchical because admission operates by restrictive standards of ability.
As for American Conservatism especially, it tends to be quite open to excitement, adventure, and opportunities. This is certainly true of Mormons, the majority of whom are socially conservative. But as heirs of the Protestant Work Ethic, they believe in hard work, achievement, new knowledge, and more opportunities. They have lots of ‘liberal-ish’ energies.

One of the strange ironies of American Political Ideology is that the ‘conservatives’ tend to be less knowledgeable of the past and even downright amnesiac. When they say they love heritage, it means just a few generations or loyalty to simpleminded symbols, such as good-ole Country Music, the roots of which aren’t very deep in America. Most American Conservatives have no sense of deeper roots in Old Europe. As more rural folks, they may feel close to the soil but they have little or no sense for their roots in the ancient soils of Europe in which their race evolved. As such, many American ‘conservatives’ are more about guns and anti-literate Evangelical faith. Or they are about the red, white, & blue, the military, and cliched symbols of what makes America the ‘greatest nation on earth’. They are ‘conservers’ of symbols and gestures than of real knowledge or rich tradition.

In contrast, ‘liberals’ tend to be better-read in history, literature, arts, and culture. (To be sure, your average ‘liberal’ is a moron addicted to pop culture, trash TV, dumb fads & fashions, and vanity, BUT, given the dominance of ‘liberals’ in academia and media, it’s fair to say more of them show interest in ideas and knowledge. Some might argue that ‘liberals’ dominate media and academia because both institutions are biased and favor their own kind, and that is surely part of the reason. But I suspect that EVEN IF media and academia were skewed toward favoring more 'conservatives’, they would still attract more ‘liberals’ because more ‘liberals’ than ‘conservatives’ show interest in ideas, arts, and knowledge.

Also, ‘liberalism’ tends to attract the more intelligent because they want to believe that they are changing society for the better. In their minds, ‘conservatism’ is either about being stuck in the status quo or moving the clock backward to the bad ole days whereas ‘liberalism’ is a tireless project of creating a better and more just society. Given the arc of the 20th century, this view of Liberalism wouldn’t be wrong.

However, both ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’ fail due to dogmatic tendencies. Too often, ‘conservatism’ has this idea that something has value because it is traditional. It’s a sentimental or even hoggish attachment to certain attitudes or way of doing things. In contrast, ‘liberalism’ has this idea that something must be better because it has novelty value — it’s so exciting! — or represents ‘change’. But truth or meaning cannot be determined by sentimental attachment or want of thrills. Take the issue of ‘gay rights’. Certain Christian anti-‘gay agenda’ people failed because they based their sense of truth on the Bible. So, they never gave any thought to the issue. The Bible says ‘homosexuality is sinful or evil’, therefore, homosexuals must be devil-possessed or just infected with sin-germs. In fact, the truth is some people are BORN with homosexual tendencies. At its base, it’s not a moral issue but a biological one. Some people are born to be tootkins, tooters, fruitkins, or fruiters. But because arch-conservatives stuck to Biblical truth, the discourse on the matter became one of ‘conservatives irrationally attached to ancient texts’ versus ‘liberals rationally enlightened by secular science’. Naturally, intelligent people are going to choose to be ‘liberal’ on the issue of homos and trannies.

But in fact, even the ‘liberals’ were full of shi*. They didn’t stop at the fact that some people are born with homosexual orientation but insisted that, somehow, it is uber-‘rational’ and uber-‘secular’ to believe that a homo-man’s anus is just as legitimate as a sexual organ as a woman’s vagina. One produces poop while other produces babies, but we are supposed to believe this. Or, we are supposed to believe that homo fecal penetration is just as valid as sexual activity as the union of the complementary organs of men and women. More bizarre yet, we are to believe that if a man gets a ‘sex-change operation’, his penis and balls can be turned into a real ‘vagina’. Stranger yet, we are now told that even a man with penis and balls is a ‘woman’ if he declares himself as such. So, penis and balls are no longer strictly male organs. And for all their rationalism and secular acumen, 'liberals' decided to conflate homosexuality and tranny-business with ‘rainbow’ colors. What homo fecal penetration or tranny penis-cutting has to do with the rainbow, I have no idea. But it doesn’t end there. Theses supposedly rational and secular people love to push homo colors into churches, as if there is nothing more sacred to God and Jesus than symbols that celebrate homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting.

If ‘conservatives’ failed on the ‘gay’ issue by sticking to the Bible, the ‘liberals’ failed because they conflate ‘change’ with More Truth. Of course, it is also why so many were duped by communism. Hey, it promised radical change, and it must be TRUE because it will be so different from the existing or current system. So, how true did Marxist or Leninist economic turn out to be? The sanest position on the ‘gay issue’ would have been for both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ to acknowledge that some people are naturally born as homos. That said, it remains that homosexuality is a sexual defect and deviance that have no biological value. Sex is, at the root, a bio-reproductive process, and homosexuals are like automobiles that pass through the assembly line with faulty wiring. Surely, there is something wrong when a man wants to spend all his life having other men ram their dongs up their bungs. Still, it is a natural defect, and we can’t blame homos for having been born and ‘mis’-wired that way.

To be sure, there is a reason why homos have come to such prominence in civilization. In a rough warrior society, men who can’t be manly have little value. But in civilization with surplus food, leisure, and privilege, people seek out fancier things. Homos have an edge in creating such things because they love fantasy, artificiality, and vanity. So, even though homos rank zero in terms of biological creation, they rank rather high in aesthetic creativity. That aspect of homo also need to be addressed.

Anyway, we need to understand a certain paradox if we are have a richly meaningful society. The more we need to push forward, the more we need to push backward. It’s like a rocket rises only by blasting tons of force against the ground. The energy is pushed back in order for the rocket to propel forward. Better analogy is with a tree. A young sapling hasn’t reached very high, and its roots are shallow in the soil. For the sapling to grow taller into a tree, it must also deepen its roots in the ground. After all, without the firm entrenchment of roots deep in the soil, the tree will easily topple over. So, the bigger and higher the tree grows upward, the deeper and lower it must reach into the soil as anchor and source of nutrients. After the great Yggdrasil tree of Germanic Mythology, we might call it the Drasilist Principle.

In construction, taller the building, stronger and deeper its foundation must be. To reach higher, you must dig deeper. And in war, the further one advances, greater the need for a support system of logistics and supplies.
This lesson seems to have been lost in the Modern West. There’s been such an emphasis on progress, development, growth, and change that people have forgotten the lesson that the higher one rises, deeper one must dig. Or the more one wanders, the greater the need for a solid homeland. There is always a need for a base of operation. Once the connection between the wanderer and the base has been severed, the wanderer is on his own, lost and confused... like the Burt Lancaster's character in THE SWIMMER. Imagine Odysseus without a home to return to. A state of permanent exile.
Why did Western Man forget this lesson? Was it the effect of media, academia, entertainment, and political correctness(PC)? Granted, those institutions/industries weren’t always so hostile to moral and traditional civilization, but they’ve certainly become so in the last several decades. Media promote tabloid news, academia teaches vapid formulas, entertainment is degenerate & promotes Mammonic idolatry, and PC tells most people to reject everything but the fanatical fads of the Current Year. Fanatic infatuation with fleeting fashions may seem contradictory, but the human mind works that way. Today’s mania becomes yesterday’s mania, and no one ever learns.

But the problem is even more grave. In the past, the influence of modern academia, liberal media, trivial entertainment, and ideological fashions were countered by four steadying forces: Church, Family, Tradition, and Patriotism. While much of modern influence was good, it had its deleterious aspects as well. So, everyone, especially in childhood, needed more than information, entertainment, theories, and trends. One needed the grounding of something more permanent, deeper, and ‘eternal’. Church, Family, Tradition(sense of history and heritage), and Patriotism provided such emotional, moral, and symbolic needs. But they have all lost prestige and meaning, especially for whites. Churches now hang homo colors and worship homos & trannies over God and Jesus. Family is just a lifestyle option if you want it, so much so that we are supposed to tell ourselves that ‘gays can have kids’. We are supposed to believe that single-mothers are just as capable of raising the kids alone, and men don’t need to stick around. And men and women don’t need to mature and become adults. Even with kids in the house, parents can be about tattoos and piercings. Feminism and Homomania have had a terrible impact on the Family.

There is no sense of tradition when the only culture for most Americans is amnesiac Pop Culture. When people are addicted to constant barrage of new thrills(even if much of them are recycled and repackaged trash), they see little value in ‘lame old stuff’.
And whatever passes for patriotism today is utterly meaningless. It is not about roots and remembrance but smashing memorials, digging up graves, and knocking down statues. It’s about spitting on the graves of ones’ ancestors, a most terrible crime. It is about desecration, not consecration. It’s not about defense of the realm but inviting mass invasion and convincing oneself that it’s great to be replaced by peoples of different races and cultures. So, the very opposite of patriotism is the New Patriotism.

Did modernity grow so demented due to its own inexorable logic? Or was it engineered largely by Jews who wanted to weaken gentile sense of unity, continuity, and morality? After all, it would have been difficult for Jews to gain so much control over whites IF whites had retained a powerful sense of memory and pride in who and what they are. The result was the West as a tree that keeps growing taller and wider but not digging deeper with roots to secure the base. But without the complementary growth downwards as well as upwards, the tree will eventually topple and fall.

I suspect the Jews had something to do with this because they have long understood that the source of Jewish Power derives from Growing Both Ways. The more Jews moved into modernity, the more they had to look into history so as not to lose the sense of who they are and where they came from. Because modernity is so bewildering, hectic, breakneck, and fast & furious, one can easily become lost, alienated, confused, decadent, and/or disoriented. Without roots and remembrance, one could be swept away by the relentless tides of modernity. Therefore, one needed to hold onto a rope of identity, history, and heritage so as not to drift out to sea. Jews are big in real estate and know that taller a building, greater its foundation must be. Jews are big in finance and know that bigger the investments, bigger the reserves must be. Jews control the World Empire and know that the more US military expands overseas, greater the need for a expanding military-industrial complex in the US.
This is the secret to their power, and apparently, they don’t want to share it with other peoples who may become rivals and enemies. Is this a conscious strategy or do Jews subconsciously act this way due to evolutionary traits that evolved from savvy middlemen activities that sought to maximize one’s profits and position at the expense of others.

Anyway, the secret is to Grow Both Ways. The more we look forward, the more we need to look backward. And the whole point of looking backward is to gain insight and inspiration to move forward. If one’s ambition is petty and narrow, there is no need to justify one’s actions that are of little consequence. But if one’s ambitions are truly grand and transformative, they must be justified by the lessons of history.
Of course, this can be done in a bad way. Consider the ways in which the globalist neo-imperialists hark back to the Founding of the United States and the Constitution to justify their insatiable drive for more hegemony by EOJ or Empire of Judea. Globalism’s invocation of the past to justify its ambitious vision for the future is mostly a lie. We are told that American Founding was all about how whites should eventually embrace ‘diversity’ and replacement by non-whites. We are told that Western History teaches us that Western Values are about celebrating homomania, worshiping Jews, and welcoming ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. The PC sophists and globalist commissars tell us that Hungary and Poland are against ‘Western Values’ because they want to preserve their race, culture, and territory, whereas nations like UK, France, and Sweden are all about ‘Western Values’ because they not only welcome tons of Africans but cast blacks in white historical roles. According to Globalism, ‘Western Values’ are mainly to lead the White West into extinction.

Cynical manipulators, charlatans, and Machiavellian rival tribesmen will always exist, and they will always misuse and corrupt essential ideas. Then, all the more reason for white people to master the art of Growing Both Ways. Consider a spaceship. If it is only orbiting Earth, it doesn’t have to make much effort to communicate with the world below because of its close proximity. But suppose the spaceship moves to Mars, then to Jupiter, then to Pluto and then heads toward a distant star. Now, its ambition has greatly expanded. But this makes it all the more necessary to ramp up its efforts to maintain contact with the home planet because, after all, its mission has no meaning apart from the plan on Earth. The spaceship is traveling far into the reaches of space because people on Earth want to know about the cosmos. Indeed, it’d be difficult to imagine something more terrifying than to be a spaceman adrift in space without knowing how to return to one’s own solar system and planet. Christopher Nolan’s INTERSTELLAR isn’t much of a film, but the dangerous mission makes sense only because it all comes back to Earth. And in INCEPTION, the ultimate goal of the main character is to find one’s way back home where the children are.

Now, it’s been said that the past is a foreign country, and in a superficial sense, it is. But on a deeper level of sentiments and symbols, they and we are the same. Jews know this. Even though today’s Jews are very different from ancient Jews in many ways, the big themes of family, community, continuity, and spirituality are the same. This is why Bob Dylan and Darren Aronofsky feel such great rapport with the stories of ancient Semites in the Bible. If we obsess so much about technology, fashions, and ideologies, we may conclude we have nothing in common with ancestors and the ancients. And in our shallow and stupid age, such attitudes are sadly commonplace. So, today’s idiot millennials cannot conceive of a time when people saw no value in ‘gay marriage’. Pop Culture addicts them to latest fads, and Political Correctness fixes their insipid self-righteousness to the Current Year. As such, lacking in true empathy and imagination, they find it nearly impossible to feel any deep bond with their forebears who were ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, or ‘antisemitic’. Jews would love to morally invalidate all of Western/Christian history on grounds that it was ‘pathological’ about Jews. But even if we were to agree that the Western/Christian World was often deluded about Jews, it isn’t very difficult to feel a connection to one’s roots and history.

Anyway, even if all the people of the past are dead and gone forever and even though we must largely live for today, it is a sense of continuity that lends meaning to why we are here now and why we are not only justified in but compelled to work for our people and the order. After all, why do Polish patriots defend their race, culture, and territory? They didn’t create those things. If current Polish people didn’t make Poland its culture and territory, why do they feel a passionate need to defend it and build upon it? Because they know it was made and bequeathed by their ancestors. Also, it was defended with much blood and sweat. And there were tragic periods when Poland faced the threat of being wiped off the map. It is by knowing all that and feeling deeply about it that the future Poland feels justified. If the connective threads of memory are cut off and if Polish people accept Pop Culture and Political Correctness as their main culture, they will no longer feel a sense of roots and remembrance, and then the righteousness claim to one’s own domain will fade. Before UK was invaded and cucked, its culture and ideology had to be weakened. It’s like an octopus will inject enzymes into the bodies of its prey before sucking up the resultant liquid. Thus, the meat of a crab is turned into liquid by the enzymes, and then it’s easy for the octopus to suck it dry. Jews and cucks did the same to Briton. Pop Culture was used to undermine real culture, memory, and mores. And then Political Correctness was used to instill Brits with ‘white guilt’ and with sophistry such as "Britain was always a Nation of Immigrants." Thus, the body of British culture and politics was turned into liquified jelly by the enzymes of PC and Pop Culture. Next, the Jewish globalist octopus can just suck it up easy.
But before Jews and cuck took over Britain, the Brits had a profound and deep sense of their race, history, culture, and territory. They understood that the British could travel so far and be so ambitious precisely because they had a rich sense of history and heritage to draw from as inspiration and guidance. But look at today’s UK. It has lost that lesson, and most white Brits are not even complaining about the looming loss of their nation because Pop Culture teaches them to worship the Negro and PC teaches them that they are the scum of the earth if they believe that Britain belongs to the native whites who have deep roots there. For those who seek to Grow One Way without Growing the Other Way, it can’t be sustained because a people without a powerful sense of where they are from won’t know where to go. If Jews abandoned their sense of history and heritage, they will go the way of Episcopalians who, for all their individual success, are like ship without a anchor, rudder, and mast that is adrift in the ocean without rhyme or reason at the mercy of other forces.