Friday, January 19, 2018

Is a Nation(such as America) Just-an-Idea? Is a Person Just-an-Idea?

It’s a common practice(even habit) among politicians and thinkers(mostly official scribes) to reiterate that America is an Idea or even ‘just an idea’. But is a nation just an idea? Can a nation be just an idea? And if a nation is just an idea, is it no longer a nation if those ideas fade and are replaced by new ones?

Let’s compare a nation with a person. Just like nations have an official ideology, identity, and/or narrative, every person has set of values and beliefs. So, the person is shaped by those ideas. Therefore, does it follow that the person is those ideas? Of course not. Rather, isn’t he a holder of those ideas or ideals? Isn’t he a believer in certain tenets and principles than the very embodiment of those ideas? If he is those ideas, is he not himself when sleeping and not thinking of those ideas? Even in waking state, is he himself only when he espouses those ideas?

While ideas and beliefs are very important, a person is primarily his core biological and biographical being. He was himself even before he espoused those ideas, he is himself with those ideas, and he will still be himself even after he has rejected those ideas and moved onto a different creed. Suppose a person claims to be a libertarian or communist. That makes him a person who espouses libertarian principles or communist dogma. So, is he the person = set of ideas? No, he is a person who follows or upholds those ideas. To conflate him-as-core-being with him-as-believer-of-ideas is utterly foolish. If we define people that way, a person is nothing unless he comes into belief in a set of ideas. And he must remain faithful to those ideas because failing to do so will unperson him. Idiotic, right?

Then, why do we apply such fallacy to the nation of America? If America is an idea(as opposed to a nation that upholds certain ideas, which have changed over the course of its history), then America was not America until those ideas came to fruition & dominance. And America would no longer be America if those ideas were compromised or rejected for new ones. In fact, however, America will always be America no matter what ideas it espouses since America is essentially the land mass between Canada and Mexico(and Alaska and Hawaii) constituting the continuity of a particular civilization that originated and developed from the mass arrival of Europeans.

Also, using the current PC logic of ideocentrism, America was not America for most if its history. If indeed America is the current set of globalist PC ideas, then it couldn’t have been America since it held onto different ideas, attitudes, and values in the past. Until the mid-1860s, America had slavery, and until the Civil War, the Northern Free States tolerated slavery in the South. Since America then had slavery — ideas at odds with freedom — , America must not have been America. We are told that America cannot be ‘racist’. But America wouldn’t exist if not for ‘racism’. White Europeans conquered America and drove out the native peoples who came to be called ‘Indians’. And there were race wars between whites and reds where the former prevailed. Also, until 1965, American immigration policy favored Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, over other peoples. Since the ideas back then were very much at odds with current Ideas(that are said to define True America), America must not have been America in the past, at least prior to 1965 when the Immigration Policy was changed by Jews.

Some have said America is a Christian nation. Some revised it to Judeo-Christian nation. It is true enough that America, as founded, was an overwhelmingly Christian Protestant nation. There’s no doubt that Christianity has been culturally and historically important to America. But is America = Christianity? But the Founding Fathers were Deists who were skeptical of Biblical claims. And they thought Jesus was a great man than a Son of God. If America = Christianity, it was founded by remarkable men who were not the most committed Christians. Also, many Americans of prominence were agnostics or atheists.

While ideas and values matter a great deal, a nation is much more than that. Nations are like people in this sense. If Bob and John are both libertarians, are they the same? After all, they believe in the same ideas. If nations are ideas, why shouldn’t we say humans are ideas too? So, Bob and John would be interchangeable since they are both ideas of libertarianism. But we know this is not true. Even if Bob and John believe in a certain ideology, they are more than what they believe. Also, even when people espouse the same ideology, they interpret and practice it differently. There are no two same Christians. Each person responds to Jesus in his or her own way. And each person came to libertarianism in his own way. And he practices libertarianism in his own way due to factors of intelligence, integrity, character, personality, happenstance, and circumstances. So, a person has a being and story beyond any set of beliefs.
Furthermore, an idea changes over time and can evolve to the point where it has little semblance of its original self. It’s like meanings of words change over time, even to the point of meaning something profoundly different from its original usage. Consider how the Greek term ‘tyrant’ didn’t necessarily have negative connotations but came to mean an evil oppressive ruler. Indeed, even Liberal Americans of the past would not recognize today’s so-called ‘liberalism’. And Progressives 100 yrs ago, or even 50 yrs ago, would be appalled at much of what passes for ‘progressivism’ today. And Conservatives from 50 yrs ago would find nothing conservative about current Conservatism Inc. that’s mostly about "Democrats are the real racists" and "Muh Israel".

Just like every person is more than the ideas he believes, a nation is more than the ideas it upholds and practices. If America is an idea, then it would follow that any other nation that shares those ideas are also ‘America’. If America is about democracy and tolerance, then isn’t Mexico also ‘America’ since it is also a tolerant democracy? Isn’t Germany also ‘America’ since it is democratic? Isn’t Brazil also America because of its democracy?
As for ‘diversity’, it can be an ideal or a condition. A nation can be diverse in actuality but not see diversity as a good thing. A nation can be homogeneous but see diversity as a desired ideal. Many diverse nations are not happy with their diversity and plagued with tensions. Some nations have traditionally been homogeneous but came under Jewish PC influence and feel inadequate because they are not ‘diverse’ enough. So, they welcome Africans and Muslims to increase diversity. Current Sweden believes Sweden = Ideal of Diversity. Since the new mandatory Idea = Diversity, many Swedes don’t believe Sweden was True Sweden in the past. True Sweden can only be created via adherence to the idea of Diversity. See how utterly stupid this line of thinking is? If indeed Sweden = Diversity, are Peru and Morocco ‘Sweden’ since they have Diversity?

Furthermore, if we claim that America is America ONLY IF it commits to the current PC of ‘anti-racism’, then even the America of either political party is not that True America. After all, both parties support Zionist-imperialist-supremacist repression of Palestinians. If True America must not play favorites among racial, ethnic, or national groups, why does the current US favor Zionists over Palestinians? Why does it favor Israel(that has 200 nuclear weapons) to Iran(that adheres to international nuclear agreements and has no nukes)? And why do the national Media favor Jews, blacks, and homos over other groups IF INDEED America is all about ‘equality’ and not about ‘playing favorites’? And if all peoples and groups are equally valuable, why must all peoples be made to support Jews/Zionism and Homomania BUT Jews and Homos are not required to support, praise, or celebrate Mormons, Palestinian-Americans? Or Chinese-Americans, Russian-Americans, German-Americans, or Incest-Sexuals? And if America is about using its might to remind us of past injustices, why is there no Nakba Remembrance Day? And if America is about waging war on its ‘racist’ past, why is the South attacked for Confederate monuments but the North isn’t condemned for its ‘genocidal’ wars against Indians? And if America is all about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, why does it honor the memory of Emma Lazarus who fully endorsed Manifest Destiny and called on more Europeans and Jews to come to America and grab remaining Indian territories by killing Indians or reducing them to wretched huddled masses in barren reservations?

If America is an idea, it is not America whenever it violates those principles. So, America could not have been America during WWII since its media called Japanese ‘Japs’ — how ‘racist’!! — and since the government rounded up Japanese-in-America for ‘internment’. Some German-Americans, tens of thousands of them, were also ‘interned’. Since the US violated its ideals, it must not have been America back then.

Now, certain ideas and values have become so ingrained or instituted into a nation or civilization that there is a tendency to conclude: Identity + Place = Ideas + Values. But the core identity of a people in a place is always more than any set of ideas and values. China was a Confucian Civilization for a long long time. But was it no longer China because Chinese Communists waged war on Confucianism? No, China was China even under the ideology of Maoists. Current China dearly loves businessmen who get rich. But Confucianism despised the merchant class. If China = Confucian Ideas, then current China is not China since the current ideas and values are so much at odds with traditional Confucian moralism.
Now, take the Turks. For the longest time, Turks were defined by Islam. But Kemal Ataturk came along and created modern secular Turkey where religion was banished from much of public life and state affairs. So, were modern Turks no longer Turks since Turkishness = Islam? Atarturkism proved that there is more to Turkishness than what Turks believe as credo.
Same goes for Greeks. Ancient Greeks were pagans. Then, they became Christians. Since their ideas and credos changed, were they no longer Greeks? Or did Greek become True Greeks only as Christians? But, if Greekness = Christian Credo, are Greeks no longer Greek if they become atheist or secular?

Ideas matter but they are not the core of an identity. Under communism, the Soviet authorities insisted that Russia and its Soviet Republics were all defined by an Idea. Soviet Union was a Proposition Empire of Marxism-Leninism. But if that is True Russia, was Russia not Russia prior to the Revolution when it had espoused different ideas and values? And did Russia cease to be Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was no longer the Propositional Idea of Russians?

The fact is cradle matters more than credo. Each person exists because he was born and develops a biography. That existence is the core essential self. Now, ideas and values are very important because humans live with beliefs and principles. But a person is a person, he is himself, regardless of what he believes. John is John as a libertarian. If he chooses to reject libertarianism and adopt communtarianism, he is still John. And even if he changes his name to ‘Muhammad’, he is still his biological self who was born of his parents. Even as ‘Muhammad’, he is the person who was born to such and such parents and was named John, experienced a unique personal history that led him to current set of beliefs that led him to change his name to ‘Muhammad’.

This much is true. Bad ideas or attitudes lead to degradation and demise of a person or nation. Hedonism will destroy a person. Fanaticism can destroy him too. And radical ideologies can bring about hell on earth to nations. Also, crude impulses can ruin a person like crazed personalities can destroy a nation. Take National Socialism. It had good ideas and bad ideas. Its good idea was nationalism and German revival, its bad idea was imperialism and racial chauvinism. What really destroyed Germany wasn’t so much the ideas but the crazed personalities who impulsively acted on the worst ideas of National Socialism. (Even systems with bad ideas can be steered safely by sane personalities. Gorbachev and Deng took over systems founded on radical ideas but steered them to moderation and world peace. If someone like Albert Speer had gained control of National Socialist Germany, wars would have been avoided.) Personalities of a nation are like impulses in a person. If a person’s neurons go haywire and go for short-term impulses than long-term sobriety, a man or woman can be lost to drugs or debauchery. Likewise, if a nation indulges the most radical, fanatical, or crazed personalities to to pursue their egotistical or tribal lusts without restraint, the result is something like US embroilment in Wars for Israel that laid waste to the Arab/Muslim world and destroyed millions of lives, resulting in the massive flood of Europe with 'refugees' as well. Another result is the ‘new cold war’ with Russia on the premise that the entire world exists mainly to serve the megalomania of Jewish supremacists who hypocritically mask their ultra-tribalism and egotism with platitudes about ‘spreading democracy’, ‘liberal democracy’, and ‘human rights’.

One of the worst and most dangerous ideas is to put credo before cradle or to conflate cradle with credo. Such assumption says a person’s ideas are more important that the person. Indeed, we are believe he is the idea. Using such logic, he is no longer a person unless he espouses certain ideas. He is unpersoned if he were to question or reject those ideas. Likewise, globalists threaten to un-nation America unless it commits to the ideas of Emma Lazarus.
But then, even if we play by rules of PC, are Lazarusean ideas really in line with Current PC that claims to be the True America? Wasn’t Emma Lazarus an imperialist and ethno-supremacist? After all, more European and Jewish immigration to America meant the expulsion of American Indians from their ancestral lands. If America is about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, didn’t Lazarusean ethos violate those principles since continued mass arrival of Europeans and white Jews made America less ‘red’(Indian) and more white? Jews say their ancestors ran from pogroms in Eastern Europe, but wasn't America created by 'pogroms' against Indians, just like Israel was created later with massive pogroms against Palestinians in the Nakba?
Furthermore, if Americanism is about atonement for its ‘racist’ past, why does the current America support Israel that was created by imperialism, pogromic ethnic cleansing, & destruction of Palestine and, furthermore, occupies West Bank & practices Apartheid there? If America is an Ideal that requires feeling guilty over Jim Crow and once-alliance with apartheid-practicing South Africa, why is it so un-repenting of its historical ‘sins’ against Palestinians? And if America is about equality, why is there more ‘white guilt’ for what was done to blacks than what was done to American Indians? Surely, ‘genocide’ is a bigger crime than slavery.

When we look at Current America, it’s less about an idea than an agenda(driven by the zealous ego of an ethnic tribe). If America is really an idea as this ethnic tribe claims, why don’t the members of this tribe practice these ideas themselves? If whites must forgo their racial identity and interests to serve the higher idea of True America, why don’t Jews forgo their identity and tribal interests to just merge with all other Americans? Why do Jews tell European-Americans that it’s wrong to preserve and serve European identity but insist that not only Jews but all gentile groups must support, praise, and serve Jewish identity, Jewish heritage, Zionist Israel, and Wars for Israel? Why do Jews insist that all non-Jews must worship Jews-as-Jews. Worse, why do they insist that all non-Jews must hate peoples and nations hated by Jews? So, if Jews hate Russians, all gentiles(even Russians) must hate Russians. If Jews hate Iranians, all gentiles(even Iranians) must hate Iranians. So much for America being an Idea. That ‘idea’ in Current America is just a ruse used by the Agenda serving the Ego of a rabid, virulent, and fanatical ethnic tribe.

Finally, if indeed America is an Idea, there is no need for people to come to America. Ideas are portable and transferable. If American Ideas are the best, then the rest of the world can adopt and use those ideas. It's like, if a people learn how to make fire, that idea can be borrowed by other peoples who can make their own fires in their own lands. They don't have to come to the people with the fire to have the fire.
It's like one doesn't have to go to Mecca to be a Muslim or go to the Vatican to become a Catholic. Islam and Catholicism are ideas or creed. They can be adopted by any people in any part of the world.
So, even if we argue America = Idea, the world can just adopt Americanism-as-Idea in their own nations. There is no need for them to flood into America. Also, if democracy was a precious commodity in the 19th century, it is dime-a-dozen all over the world. Most nations are democracies around the world. Besides, much of the world has been 'Americanized' with McDonalds, Hollywood, Evangelicalism, and even Homomania. They can have their 'America' in their own nations.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Smug Drug of Political Correctness

Why do people take certain illegal drugs. They want to get high and feel super. They want to be like insta-gods. Drugs — PCP, cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, meth, etc. — elevate their sense-of-being with euphoria that fills them with delusions of grandeur. Consider James Woods in the movie THE BOOST where his coke-head character feels he can do anything when high on powder. Cocaine boosts his ego with Mood Supremacism. He feels like the greatest player that ever lived. He feels invincible, better than all the rest. Addicted to the sensation, he returns to the drug for the high over and over and over, and eventually he can't do without it.

Our world tends to associate ‘supremacism’ with ‘white racism’, but wanting to feel superior/supreme is a common trait among all peoples. Religions fill people with a sense of spiritual supremacism: "Our god or gods are better than yours", "God is on our side", "I am holier than thou". And the reason why women are so obsessed about cosmetics and celebrity is because they're drawn to the culture of Beauty Supremacism. Women want to look better than other women.
And men are obsessed with sports that are premised on masculine supremacism of the tougher guys lording over weaker guys, making big bucks, and humping ‘hot babes’.

So, despite all this stuff about ‘equality’, our society is obsessed with supremacism of all kinds. And one of the easiest kinds of highs is Moral Supremacism. Thus, Political Correctness or PC is really a kind of drug. Karl Marx called religion the ‘opiate of the masses’. PC is crack for the self-righteous. Certain terms like ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘homophobia’, and etc. have a drug-like effect on those who chant them. Though ostensibly used against bigots, chauvinists, and supremacists, the reason for their terminological appeal is the euphoric effect upon snorting, vaping, injecting, or popping doses of self-righteousness.
And this is why PC is dangerous. It really has to be treated as a drug addiction. Anyone who has observed so-called ‘SJW’ types will notice they are not amenable to compromise, understanding, and reason. They just love to repeat the mantras of ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘homophobia’(and sometimes ‘misogyny’, ‘xenophobia’, and ‘Islamophobia’) because another 'hit' of virtue-vanity gives them easy highs.
Trying to communicate with such people is like trying to get through to those intoxicated on moonshine or flying on speed. The smug are more prone to preening self-righteousness, and the easiest way to feel holier-than-thou is by resorting to PC. This addiction isn’t limited to a single group. Even Conservatives are addicted to insta-virtue by preaching that the Democrats are the ‘real racists’. No one wants to discuss complex issues with honesty and reason since they care more about supremacist sensations of easy virtue.
Even cucking is a form of PC drug addiction. Sniffing Cuckaine makes one bunch of whites feel insta-morally-superior to other whites(those who refuse to cuck). Cucks feel as ‘good whites’ attacking ‘bad whites’. It’s near-impossible to get through to them with honest debate since the likes of David French are so full of themselves as ‘good whites’ who say the Magic Words of insta-virtue.

In this sense, media and academia should really be seen as Big Pharma of the mind. They are drug-dealers who push PC as Uppers and Downers to the confused and impressionable who, by abusing terminological substances of PC, get to indulge in self-righteous supremacism as a raging high.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Did the Rise of Educated Parents Lead to Political Correctness?

We generally associate more education and higher learning with expansion of discourse and thought. The idea is that educated people tend to be liberal(in a good way) and more open to new ideas and contrasting perspectives. Such assumption is surely valid to some degree.
But, we must ask... Is current education-in-general more about open-mindedness and critical-thinking or about ideological dogmatism, secular idolatry, and political conformity? If the former, it’s very possible that more education will lead to greater exchange of ideas and honest discussion of power. But if the latter, more education could very well make people closed-minded and judgmental in their conformity to the prevailing Political Correctness.

Prior to the boomer generation, only a small section of Americans got higher education. Even the Greatest Generation, with their G.I. Bills, focused on learning skills to get jobs. It was with the boomers that a burgeoning number of young people went to college to expand their minds. However, the 60s were a time of extreme ideological and racial polarization, and many boomer students spent their college years getting radicalized than intellectualized. Their youth became defined and qualified by the level of commitment, determination, and self-righteousness. Even though they were more libertine in their socio-cultural attitudes(in regards to church, manners, and sexual mores) than their parents, they were more judgmental in their ideological views. In contrast, their parents were more uptight about sexuality and more likely to respect traditional manners, but because they were less educated, their views on politics tended to be less radical. Sure, parents of boomers could be political like Archie Bunker in defending the flag or hating communism. But because of their relative lack of education and ‘sophistication’, their attitudes were more about patriotism and sentiment. It was knee-jerk stuff. Because they didn’t have elaborately intellectual rationale behind their political views, they were less likely to be radical about it. After all, radicals are ideological extremists. For one to be truly ideological, there has to be intellectual pedigree behind one's commitments. The parents of boomers simply didn’t have a complex thought system behind what they believed. Also, even as they disagreed with their boomer kids radicalized by college and media, they thought maybe the kids knew better with their superior education. After all, they worked hard and raised their kids to get the kind of college education that they didn't get or got an inferior version of during the Great Depression or the crude era of G.I. Bill mass education. Parents of boomers felt patriotic feelings but lacked a thought-system. In contrast, their boomer kids were instilled with mind-systems to support their radical views. While political emotions ebb and flow, the cold steel of ideology is always present among those who've adopted an intellectual(or pseudo-intellectual) thought system. Even though both Archie Bunker and Meathead are prone to outbursts, the difference is Archie runs on emotions & sentiment whereas Meathead is energized by an ideology & agenda. Also, because Meathead is better educated, he is so sure that he ‘knows everything’. His intellectual supremacism leads to moral supremacism. In contrast, even though Archie Bunker is very sure about some things, he sees himself as a servant of God, nation, and tradition. He doesn't think HE himself knows everything.

Even though Archie Bunker disapproves of much that Gloria says and does, he left her alone to develop her own mind. Not being a thinker or intellectual, he played the conventional role of father, letting Gloria to develop as a person on her own by way of education, entertainment, and experimentation. Bunker trusted that the institutions would do a good job filling his daughter with the right kinds of ideas. He didn’t hover over her at all times. He saw himself as a undereducated man, so his main role was to provide for Gloria so she would get real knowledge from school and media. So, despite his cantankerous nature and abrasiveness, Gloria didn’t grow up under his shadow. She developed on her own.
In contrast, well-educated Meathead believes he knows all there is to know since he read so many books, got a college degree, and settled in an intellectual position as teacher. As such, he plays a much bigger role in the raising of his child. He’s not content to play the role of father who tells funny stories and provides food on the table. He wants to steer his son to think like him and judge the world as he does. And since there is no God as higher authority, there is only the power of ideology as the final word.

Thus, we end up with a conundrum. It’s possible that more free-thinking kids will come from undereducated parents and less free-thinking kids will come from overeducated parents. Undereducated parents don’t know much and leave their kids to learn stuff on their own. Now, it’s possible that these kids will come under power of PC at school. But because they are not under ideological domination at home, they are likely to develop a more libertine attitude about things. In contrast, kids of overeducated(which is to say over-indoctrinated) parents will get PC not only from school but at home from their parents. So, they got double-whammy PC. One thing I noticed is that many of my peers who grew up in the 70s and 80s were left alone by their parents when it came to ideological matters. Most of their parents were around 30 yrs old in 1967, so they were too old to be part of Counterculture(though too young to be part of WWII generation). These parents were not overtly ideological(for the most part) and left the kids to develop freely.

But things have changed over the years with new batch of parents, especially among the upper-middle-class and above, being very well-educated(which is to say well-indoctrinated). These parents are not content to just provide a nice and loving environment for their kids. They insist on instilling their children with their own self-righteous ideology and iconography(mainly around Magic Negroes, Holy Homos, and Wonderful Jews). This ideological domineering is all the more effective because of the passive/aggressive style of parenting. Parents prior to boomerism weren’t very ‘nice’, huggy-wuggy, and friendly with their kids. So, kids grew apart from their parents with the passing of years. But, the PC parents want to be ‘nice’ and ‘understanding’. This bonds them closer to their children and makes the children want to please their parents more. So, if the parents are boo-hoo weepy-poo about MLK and ‘racism’, the kids want to play along to please their ‘nice’ and ‘understanding’ parents.

And things have gotten much worse due to the rise of PC. At least throughout the 70s and even 80s, the prevailing value among many Liberal parents and teachers was freedom of speech. Consider the Liberal support of Salman Rushdie when Iranian clergy put a Fatwa on him over SATANIC VERSES. Back then, despite the campaign against ‘racism’, Liberalism was strongly defined by ACLU-style libertarianism that defended free speech and expression as a good in and of themselves. (Also, culture hadn't gone totally bonkers with stuff like 50 genders and homomania.) But with the rise of PC, the correctness of views became more important than freedom of speech or individuality. Also, because PC has become such a determinant in careerism — consider the fate of James Damore at Google — , ambitious parents who want their kids to attend elite schools and have successive careers apply extra pressure, consciously or subconsciously, to make their kids assent to the rules of PC.

So, what is the solution? The ideal of the less-educated parents? No, that would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, we need to create a new intellectual culture that favors freedom, honesty, and truth over correctness, self-righteousness, and craven opportunism.

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Was the Jewish-Christian Conflict More about Race than Religion?

Was the Jewish-Christian divide really about race: most Christians came to be gentiles?
Suppose Christianity hadn't gone the Paulian way. Suppose the followers of Jesus preached mainly to fellow Jews in a movement intended mainly to be a reform religion for Jews.

There surely would have been much acrimony between the two groups(Judaic Jews and Christian Jews), but maybe the problems wouldn't have been so unsolvable if the contest had remained among Jews. It's like German Protestants and German Catholics used to attack one another but eventually patched things up and got along as fellow Germans.

But Christianity passed onto gentiles; thus most Christians were not Jewish converts/reformers but non-Jews who took up the Faith. So, the conflict between Judaism and Christianity went from differences of theology to differences of ethnology. And matters of blood are always deeper than matters of ink.

Religious Jews in Israel can tolerate and even accept secular Jews, communist Jews, decadent Jews, and all sorts of non-observant Jews as fellow tribesmen, but they reject even the most Philosemitic non-Jews as members of the community. Indeed, Jews feel closer to ethno-Jews who accept Jesus than to gentiles who reject Jesus and accept Moses. When Bob Dylan was into Jesus for awhile, Jews still regarded him as one of their own.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Will 'Anti-Racist' Political Correctness Endanger Meritocracy in Years to Come?

Every order would benefit to have the best & brightest working in the various fields of inquiry and enterprise.
If, say, a social order prohibits social advancement to non-believers and admits only avowedly religious persons, then it will miss out on the talents of atheists and agnostics. To be sure, some may lie and pretend to be religious. But anyone who remains true to his convictions will summarily be denied entry to competition. The problem will be compounded if the many intelligent people happen to be non-believers. Then, all that talent will never see the light of day. Consider all the smart people who were sent to toil on farms during the radical Maoist era that insisted on ideological purity.
Granted, if most intelligent people were religious and most dummies atheist/agnostic, then the impact of suppressing non-believers will be far less deleterious. When even most intelligent Europeans believed in God in the pre-modern period, it wouldn't have made much of a difference if non-believers were banned from institutions of higher learning. But as scientific discoveries began to cast serious doubt on Church teachings, increasing numbers of smart Europeans tended toward disbelief. Therefore, restricting science and math only to the religiously-inclined would have held back in advancements in those fields.

In the several decades following the end of World War II, the impact of ideological taboos had a minimal negative impact. The reasons were twofold. Most intelligent people sincerely believed that Race was more a social construct than a biological fact. So, even if people deemed 'racist' were banned from hiring and promotion, it didn't affect the hiring of the best and brightest. Also, the definition of 'racist' wasn't as broad as it eventually came to be. By today's PC standards, even most liberals of the not-too-distant past would be deemed 'racist', as well as 'homophobic', 'antisemitic', and 'xenophobic', not to mention 'sexist' and 'misogynous'. Back in the 50s and 60s, a 'racist' was someone in the Klan or someone who explicitly resorted to racial slurs against minorities in the West.

And most people deemed outright 'racists' in the past were indeed rather low-grade in terms of ability, achievement,and moral character. So, banning such people hardly affected the talent pool of America. It'd be like banning cripples from sports. The best would still play. It was not like banning Jews in National Socialist Germany that immediately impacted the quality of the sciences, especially in physics and mathematics. Or like the suppression of Jews in the Soviet Union. Though the Soviet Union was never explicitly anti-Jewish, its harsh stance against Zionism led to the blacklisting of many Jews suspected of greater loyalty to the Tribe & Israel(and by extension the US) than to the USSR. Because of the higher intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews, this led decrease in talent pool in key Soviet institutions.

Anyway, PC might finally begin to impact the talent pool in the West. For one thing, the New Right in both the US and EU is not made up of low-grade morons who made up the bulk of KKK, Neo-Nazis, skinheads, or far-right cranks. Many people in the New Right are pretty bright, and their views are actually more grounded in facts of biology, laws of history, and needs of morality. So, the blacklisting of the Right in the 21st century will not just deny hiring and promotion to far-right dummies but to a growing number of men and women of talent.

Even more troubling is the way in which PC has rendered promiscuous the meanings of 'racism', 'antisemitism', 'homophobia', and etc. In the current year, just about anything can be construed as 'racist' depending on the feelings of the aggrieved or 'triggered'. So, even if you did nothing, you could end up like Joseph K. of THE TRIAL, accused of crimes you have no idea you committed. Worse, even 'hate hoaxes' perpetrated by blacks, Jews, and homosexuals are less likely to be condemned than showcased as 'teachable moments', indeed even after the hoax has been exposed.

'Racism' now means the failure to flatter blacks and their egotistical delusions 24/7. 'Antisemitism' now means the mere act of noticing Jewish Power and/or being critical of it. 'Homophobia', a bogus term for a non-existent phenomenon, means not being properly deferential to vain homos and their narcissism. As if that isn't absurd enough, there are also panics about 'transphobia', something one could be accused of if he believes a man is still a man despite his insistence that he is now a 'woman'.

As more and more intelligent people become aware of the reality of race, key differences between the sexes, degeneracy of the homo-tranny agenda, and/or the problems of various non-Western Cultures due to mass-'immigration'/colonization, AND FURTHERMORE, as PC Taboo casts a wider net as to which attitudes & actions constitute Thought Crimes, it is inevitable that the West will increasingly suppress real talent and integrity(a necessary quality for courage and honesty to speak the truth) in the Talent Pool, and as a result, meritocracy will suffer in many fields of science, letters, enterprise, and arts & culture.

Banning 'hate' in the past used to mean denying voice and choice to low-grade dummies. Now, banning 'hate' means the suppression of any able, honest, and courageous voice that is hated by the globalist elites, most of whom are contemptuous Jewish supremacists and their craven shabbos goy cuck-whites.
To work for any 'progressive' outfit, one must not only denounce the KKK & Neo-Nazis but revere homos & trannies and keep mum about the overwhelming reality of Jewish Power. Also, one must make believe that black problems today are still on par with race problems of the Jim Crow Era. According to PC, any white person who boycotts the NFL is a 'racist'. That's a lot of people who could very well end up on the PC blacklist.

The future will be interesting as Liberalism has gone from expanding meritocratic freedoms to more kinds of people to limiting meritocratic opportunity only to those who adhere to Politically Correct dogma.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

The Central Question is this: Do you see your Nation as your Home or your Apartment? Are your people the Owners or Renters of the National Property?

The central question is this: Do you see your nation as your home or your apartment? Are your people the Owners or Renters of the National Property?

If you see it as your home, your people collectively hold the title on the property.
If you see it as your apartment, then it's just a lease held by individuals and can be revoked.
And those with leases than titles can be evicted and replaced with new occupants.

Title or Lease? That is your choice. National Ownership of the Title OR Rented Property owned by a handful of Globalist Oligarchs. Globalists hate Putin and Russia because they nationalized natural resources as the property of all Russians, not private property to be owned by globo-oligarchs who 'rent' and 'lease' them out to the Russians.

The Elite Globalists see all of the West as their property, not yours. They see themselves as the landlords with the power to rent out national property to people-as-apartment-dwellers.

So, white people in Europe or New Europe(America and Canada) are denied collective ownership of their nation. Th entire nation is just private property owned by globalist landlords who lease it out to 'diversity'. Replacism is the Name of the Game.
In a sane world, each individual owns his personal-private property, BUT the nation-as-civilization-history-and-culture is owned collectively by all patriots.

Globalists push the Renter-Principle on ALL PEOPLES... except guess which nation? Israel where the Jews are recognized as the Eternal Title-Holders to their own nation.

Why do globalists deny such Principle of Patriotic Ownership of Homeland to Poles and Hungarians?
Wake up people.

The Plaque on STATUE OF LIBERTY turns us all into mere Renters, not Owners. It takes away our title and replaces it with a lease. It is the STATUTE OF LESEE.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Rule of Empire: Only the Master Race is allowed both Nationalism and Imperialism

If you want to know who controls the empire, look to the group that can play it both ways: nationalism and imperialism. All other groups must play only by the rules of imperialism.

In the British Empire, the Brits could be patriotic & nationalist(and guard British sovereignty) but also imperialist in transgressing against the national or tribal independence & sovereignty of other peoples. Since non-Brits couldn't insist on their own tribal or national independence/sovereignty, their only option was to submit to the imperialist agenda enforced by an external power.

So, even though there were many races and cultures in the British Empire, the Brits ruled whereas others were ruled. Brits guarded their power and independence in the empire whereas all other groups had to succumb to British power and obey.

And it was likewise in the Japanese Empire. Only the Japanese could be both nationalist and imperialist. Japanese territory, identity, and independence were inviolable.
In contrast, other Asian peoples within the empire had to play by rules of imperialism. They could not have national sovereignty or independence. So, Japan wasn't just part of the empire but its master. Empire was designed to glorify and increase Japanese pride and power at the expense of others who could only benefit as imperial subjects.

Today, globalism is the new imperialism that mainly emanates from the US. Now, which is the ONLY group that is allowed both nationalism and imperialism in the globalist game? Some might say Americans, but that's not true. After all, white Americans(and Europeans) are not allowed to have a racial, cultural, or national identity. Even Germans, French, Swedes, British, and Irish now must believe that there is no such thing as distinct or particular European Culture. 'Western Values' are now all about Diversity, Pop Culture, homomania, and opening white nations to endless tides of Third World thugs, savages, and grubsters.

Does this mean globalism is a kind of universal imperialism where ALL nations and peoples become equally invaded and overrun and transformed?
After all, the West easily invades and turns the Middle East upside down. And, the West is helpless to stem the invasive tide from Middle East and Africa. So, are all peoples equally helpless and victimized under globalist imperialism?

No. There is one people and a nation that are exempt from the imperialist rule. Look at AIPAC, Israel, and Holocaust-as-religion, and Jews are clearly exempt from the imperialist rule of having to surrender -one's identity, heritage, and nation-hood. If anything, there are more holocaust memorials going up all over Europe to spread the worship of Jews as a holy people. And if there is ONE ISSUE that both parties are agreed upon in the US, it is that we must all support Zionism and Israel, even turning a blind eye to 'apartheid' conditions in West Bank and war-torn ghetto conditions in Gaza.

So, globalism is not universal imperialism that equally tramples on the national sovereignty of every people. One people are passed-over, and if anything, all nations must sing hosannas to Israel. Even as globo-Jews insist that Germany, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Austria, and Baltics states must fill up with Muslims and Africans(or else be denounced as 'far right' or 'nazi' by world media), all those gentile nations must pledge in unison the utmost importance of defending, preserving, and glorifying Israel as a Jewish State.

And even as whites must never ever fret about the loss of their identity and culture(and instead welcome non-whites as 'new Europeans' and 'new Americans' to replace them and spit on their graves), it's perfectly fine for Jews to worry about the loss of Jewish identity as the greatest tragedy imaginable.

So, if only the rulers of the empire can have both nationalism and imperialism, then it's reasonable to conclude that Jews are indeed the rulers of the globalist empire as they and only they are allowed to proudly keep and guard the distinctness of their identity, history, and territory.

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

American Identity went from National to Imperial. Identity has become like Currency. Jewish Globalists now act like British Imperialists.

American Identity went from National to Imperial.

It's like how Roman identity went from the property of real Romans to that of Non-Roman Others in the Empire.

Once identity becomes de-nationalized and then imperialized, the Core Population grows demoralized as what had once been special and unique to them becomes generic and diluted. And the new 'citizens' only care about the identity as a meal ticket.

Identity became like currency.

There was a time when currency was backed with precious metals, especially gold. But when gold standard was gone, any new amount could be printed at the whims of bankers or the state. Currency became easy to manipulate.

Likewise, Identity was based on blood. Once it was cut off from river of history and ethnicity, it was stamped with generic ink. So, anyone could easily become an American, and as Americanization is the globalist-imperium that sets the template for the world, every nation(except Israel with Passover exception) is 'Americanized', which means its identity must also go from National(unique and special) to Imperial(generic and mercenary).

So, there is no longer any difference between American, British, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Irish, Brazilian, and etc. 'Diversity' and Elite-Minority-Supremacism define their New National Identity, which is anything but truly national. They are interchangeably Global. France is turning into a nation of 'Americans' who speak French.

So, just as anyone can easily become American, a newly arrived African with no roots in France is just as French as a Frenchmen with racial & cultural roots going back many centuries, and a newly arrived Turk or Syrian with no roots in Germany is just as German as a German with racial & cultural roots in Germany since time immemorial.

Americanism is no longer just a national idea that applies only to America but the ONE AND ONLY IDEAL FOR ALL NATIONS(with the exception of Israel that must remain Jewish-majority and Jewish-ruled).

The reason why imperialists hate nationalism is two-fold.

Imperialists are filled with hubris, and their own nation is no longer big enough for their ambitions and pretensions. So, whereas Bismarck was content with German nationalism, Kaiser Wilhelm and later Hitler wanted world empires. And in striving for empire over nation, they brought ruination upon Germany.

In striving for empire, imperialists neglect the sober interests of their own nation and drive their nations to huge risks... like Japan did in WWII that led to defeat and destruction.

Today, we have Merkel and her Empire of Compassion that is based on Moral Hubris. That too is destroying Germany. And Sweden's pretensions as a 'Moral Super Power', a Empire of Political Correctness, is leading it to Swedish Suicide or Swecide.

Another reason why imperialists hate nationalism is it undermines the legitimacy and power of the empire. After all, imperialists have majority power only in their homeland. Outside the empire, they are alien minority elites over OTHER peoples. If nationalism were the norm worldwide, native masses will rise up and push out the elite minority imperial overlords. So, the ONLY way the imperialists can justify their power over Other Peoples is to make the latter feel as part of a Great Empire that transcends tribal or national interests.
This is what the British did. Consider how the Brits used to rule over India, Malaysia, Kenya, Uganda, Rhodesia, Palestine, etc. (And the Japanese sold their regional globalist-imperialism as a radiant project of the Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.)
By rules of nationalism, each of those peoples would have struggled for national independence & sovereignty, sought to drive out the British overlords, and have their own nation. Indians would have demanded India for Indians, Malaysians would have demanded Malaysia for Malaysians, Kenyans would have demanded Kenya for Kenyans, and etc. That would have meant end of empire.
So, the British Imperialists sought to convince their non-British subjects that it was glorious and gratifying to be part of this grand wondrous empire under the loving care of the gentle queen. Also, the British imperialist elites appealed to class/caste as a binding principle among various peoples in the empire, i.e. however different they may be in race or culture, the non-white (comprador) elites and British elites belonged to a shared community of superiority and privilege.
If nationalism emphasized the special bond between national elites and national masses, imperialism urged subject elites to collaborate with the ruling imperial elites while neglecting their own peoples. Under British Imperialism, the great contradiction lay in British elites' representation & defense of British masses while pressuring non-British elites to forgo their patriotic responsibilities to their own peoples. Only the British elites could be both nationalist and imperialist whereas subject elites in the empire had to operate only in the imperialist mode of obeying British mandates.

Today, as the Anglosphere World is the subject domain of Jewish globalists, the ONLY people who have the privilege of being both nationalist and imperialist are the Zionists. Only Jews can have both powerful nationalism in Israel while, at the same time, demanding that gentile elites cut their ties to gentile masses and serve Jewish Globalists elites instead. If you disobey, you become ostracized, isolated, and sanctioned by Russia under Putin and Hungary under Orban. (Jews saw right through the British BS, and early Zionists in Palestine had no desire to serve as comprador elites of the British Empire. In time, they used terror to drive out the British, and then used war to ethnically expel the Arabs to create a Jewish nation-state. Ironically, even though Israel was an imperial creation, it was the first non-Western nation to 'liberate' itself from European imperialism after WWII. Zionists, being imperialists themselves, understood the guile of Western Imperialism better than most.)

Today, Jews think and act not unlike the British Imperialists of old Jews are only a majority in Israel. While Jews want a Jewish state in Israel, their power and influence are precarious in all other nations. Why? Because there are few or no Jews in most gentile nations. Nationalism is a barrier to Jewish penetration and takeover. So, in order for Jews to take over the entire world(by using American neo-imperialism controlled by Jewish elites), Jews must convince the entire world to 'Americanize' as America goes from a white nation to a non-white one. So, America is to turn non-white, and Europe is to 'Americanize'. And then, all other gentile nations must dilute their national identities and formulate a new shared globo-imperial identity based on Americanism that says anyone can become anyone almost overnight based on 'rule of law' as devised by Jewish globalist lawyers. And the new shared neo-religion for all peoples must be worship of Homomania since Anno Sodomini.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Globalism calls for Clash of Civilizations but also Mash of Populations. And the Problem of Excessivism and Homoholics.

Globalism calls for Clash of Civilizations but also Mash of Populations.

It's about forests at war with forests but trees being uprooted and moved all around.

So, we have these Wars for Israel that pits the West against Middle East and North Africa.
Western military invades and bombs those places. It's Western Forest attacking Muslim Forest in a strategy premised on Clash of Civilizations.
But then, Muslim trees are uprooted and replanted in Western soil. Thus, Muslim trees are planted alongside the Native trees(that have been severed from their roots, therefore no longer able to draw sustenance and meaning from heritage and history).
We are told that the forests must fight but the trees must get along together.

Another Clash of Civilization is the ridiculous 'new cold war' with Russia. We are supposed to support NATO of US and EU against Big Bad Wolf of Russia. At the same time, US and EU urge all Russians of talent and ability to move to the West and settle in Germany, UK, and US. Or Israel.

There is also growing Western intervention in black Africa for whatever reason: Terrorism, competition with China, neo-imperialist meddling. And we hear about how black Africa is 'less evolved' because it doesn't worship homos. So, that's another clash of civilization... but the EU actively promotes repopulating its nations with African 'migrant' invaders.
The West must intervene in Africa because African Values have made a mess of things, BUT Africans with African values are most welcome in the West, and white folks must 'welcome' them.

Another much-touted Clash of Civilization is between the 'liberal democratic' West and autocratic China ruled by Ming the Merciless. So, we are told that the US needs to surround China with massive naval presence. And maybe a war may be inevitable in the future.
At the same time, US-Australia-Canada welcome and allow tons of Chinese immigration. In some parts of Canada and Australia, Chinese are buying up entire areas. Get ready to fight the Chinese Forest but let in tons of Chinese trees.

What a schizo world. Clash of Civilizations running alongside Mash of Populations.
We are told the West must fight the Non-West due to clash in values and interests... but those non-whites are welcome in the West because the West is about 'inclusion', 'diversity', 'intersectionality'(of all groups with holy homos), and 'anti-white privilege'. Supposedly, all those newcomers will be Queeristened(homo-christening) in time, and all will work out. Like the queeristened Mosque in Canada.

"We will let Muslims Islamize the West, but we will Queeristen Islam."

The synthesis: Homoslam.

All of this could be avoided if the West didn't give into Excessivism. Lots of things are okay or even beneficial in moderation or proper doses. Diversity can be good if restricted or limited. But excessive diversity is a mess. Empires fall apart due to excessive diversity, so why make diversity the core character of a nation? The whole point of a nation is to have a homeland independent of empire. But if the homeland itself becomes excessively diversified, there is no peace and stability.

Homo culture is okay and even creative & productive if properly constrained. But let homos run wild with their narcissism and vanity, and we end up with Homomania as new religion.

It's like alcohol. In moderation, it's no problem and even has some health benefits. But excessive drinking and addiction leads to sickness, mental breakdown, and self-destruction.
Alcohol is okay but alcoholism is not okay.
Homos are okay, but homomania or homoholism is not okay. What we have now is Homoholics who are addicted to homomania as the central value and core conviction of their lives. Most homoholics are not even homo. They are straight but were raised from cradle with the 'sacralization' of the homo. So, just as Christians feel cleansed in association to Jesus, most millennials feel justified and redeemed in association with holy homos.
A certain cause or group is deemed more righteous if it has the blessing of homos. It's like 'God on our side' except as 'Holy Homos on our side.'
And they cannot get enough of this because they are addicts or homoholics. And there are also Afroholics who more-or-less worship the black race as Magic Negroes. Consider all those white fools who frothed at the mouth and fainted at Obama rallies or consider Chris Matthews with thrills up his legs.
And then you got Xenoholics who can't get enough Diversity since their self-righteous supremacist arrogance is predicated on hugging immigrants, minorities, and foreigners to showcase how 'tolerant' and 'inclusive' they are in contrast to all those 'racists'. It's their drug of moral supremacism to get high on themselves.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Why is the Globalist 'left' far more Dangerous than the Classic Left? Its aim isn't to help the masses but to Replace them.

It's no longer about the Left vs the Right. Long ago, even leftists were patriots. New Deal was for Americans Only, and the French Communist Party was anti-immigration and for the French Working Class.

So, the victory of the Left was not an 'existential' threat to the nation. French Revolution didn't destroy France. Labour governments in the past didn't destroy Great Britain. And even though far-leftist communism was terrible, it still preserved the peoples and cultures of various nations such as Russia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, and etc.

The Left called for more power to the working class of the nation. It didn't call for the replacement of native folks with invasive foreign masses. So, regardless of political victory, left or right, the nation was preserved in terms of racial, cultural, and historical integrity.

Also, the Left used to be anti-imperialist and pro-nationalist. It championed the right of Third World peoples to cast off the yoke of Western Imperialism and amass their own power in their own nations, ancient or new.

That was then, this is now. Today, what is called the 'left' has nothing to do with the Classic Left. It is globalist, controlled by Jewish-Homo oligarchs, and seeks to destroy the ethnic/cultural/historical character of every nation. It is like Ugly Americanism on steroids. It is rude, intrusive, and arrogant. It goes to EVERY nation(except Israel) and demands that it 'welcome' endless immigration-invasion, even to the point of having the native folks(with deep roots in the soil) be REPLACED by others.

This new 'left' isn't about economic policy or workers' rights. Its Sorosian Agenda is to destroy the unique ethnic/cultural/territorial character of every nation.

When the Old Left won, it meant a change in economic policy. It didn't destruction of the nation's sense of history, identity, and territory.
But, if the globalist 'left' wins, it means your nation is lost forever. Worse, this globalist agenda of Replacism is pushed not only by these 'new leftists' but by neo-liberals and neo-conservatives who see no value in the preservation of History, Identity, Territory(or HIT), except in Israel of course.

The victory of this Sorosian 'left' means your nation is gone forever, and your people have been REPLACED by foreign masses who, btw, came to your nation not out of respect or admiration but parasitic self-interest.

History, Identity, and Territory. HIT, that is the essence of a nation. Be a HITTER against the REPLACISTS. The so-called 'new left' of REPLACISTS says your nation doesn't belong to your people. It says your nation belongs to the globalist oligarchs(like George Soros) and their Replacist hordes.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Paradox of Globalism. We are made into Animals and then Tamed into Obedience.

The Perverse Paradox of Globalism.

It says we should reject & abandon our old 'repressions' of civilization and be uninhibited(much like black-Africans). We should give into our wild animal nature in sex and aggression. It's no wonder that Rap, MMA, and pornification of mainstream culture are what the Current West is all about.

This return to 'natural' freedoms also means erasure of national borders and facilitation of free movements of peoples like wild animals and migratory birds. This is where globalism meets libertarianism. We should give into our natural urges and instincts and be like animals liberated from old inhibitions.

But 'nature' isn't only about fun & excitement but about tension, conflict, and crisis. Nature gains equilibrium through constant violence and counter-violence, through the endless friction between aggression and defense.
So naturally, when people are urged to feel, act, and express themselves like animals, there will be more tribal tensions among them. Nature seeks balance, pitting the aggressive drives and defensive reactions. This leads to social chaos, and this worries globalist elites who see rising problems all over the world. The elites tell us to act like animals but then admonish us for acting out-of-order or tribal-and-defensive.

Globalists want us to be like animals because people who give into their animal urges and impulses are more likely to be excessive consumers of goods and services. Also, humans-as-consumers are merely economic animals and have no sense of identity, culture, or heritage. They are easier to manipulate with the latest fads and fashions. They are useful minions who work and then blow all their earnings on 'fun and games' of the Moment.

The problem for globalists is that Being-Natural means being uninhibited not only as excessive consumers and hedonists but as tribal warriors and territorial defenders. A 'natural' person could be a mindless consumerist pig(favored by globalists), but he could also be someone who expresses his or her TRUE and HONEST feelings about Jews, homos, and blacks(the holy three according to PC cult). And Jews can't tolerate that kind of 'naturalness' since it challenges their supremacist claim to power. Jews want us to be like animals and children with big appetites for consumerism. They want us to be like pigs who will buy whatever pushed onto them. But they don't want us to be brazen and uninhibited with our true blue honest opinions about power(held by Jews), crime(dominated by blacks), and degeneracy(spread by homos).

For globalism to sustained(to the point of breaking the spine of European consciousness), we need to be turned into trashy animals who've lost their sense of identity, culture, and heritage. We need to be like animals who will go wild over the latest 'fun' fad or fashion. However, natural passions can also run wild and free against Jews, blacks, and homos. After all, the natural tribal passion among whites is to defend themselves against Jewish malfeasance, black brutality, homo pathology, and demographic imperialism by hostile peoples. But that is the natural side of white folks that globalists cannot tolerate. So, PC is used as Obedience School to TAME us to act proper when it comes to certain topics and issues.

We are no longer cultivated into thinking rational individuals with respect for heritage and culture. Traditionally, the Western Ideal was to elevate people from their base animal nature with a combination of critical reason, cultural reverence, and creative individuality. No more. Thanks to globalism, we are to be turned into wild impulsive animals(addicted to trashy junk pop culture and infantile pleasures) and then be tamed by PC to spare certain groups & interests (Jews, blacks, and homos) from our natural ire. If whites are allowed animal-like hatred, it is against other whites or whomever Jews hate at the moment(like Iranians or secular Syrians at war with Jihadis).

Globalism doesn't regard us as humans capable of rising about animality. It encourages us to be dumb animals enslaved to piggish appetites and restrained not by reason and civility but by sticks & carrots of PC with its simple-minded taboos and hysteria.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Muslim Terrorists are like Fire. 'Nice' Immigrant-Invaders are like Carbon Monoxide.

Terrorists are like fire. You can't help but to take notice.
In contrast, 'nice' immigrant-invaders are like CO or Carbon Monoxide. You don't notice the danger they pose and die in your sleep.

Muslim Terrorists are better than 'nice' immigrant-invaders of all stripes. The main threat to the West is not terrorism but demographic replacement, white genocide(aka White Nakba), and loss of European lands to foreign invaders. Even if not a single immigrant-invader committed acts of terrorism, mass immigration-invasion will totally transform Europe into the Third World. Even if every immigrant-invader were law-abiding and hard-working, their mass arrival and colonization will destroy the ethnic, cultural, and historical character of the West.

Therefore, terrorists are better than huggerists. If Sadiq Khan were a terrorist, he would not be mayor of London. He would be dead, in jail, or shipped back to Pakistan and never allowed back.
His huggy-gentler approach disarmed Britain into 'welcoming' mass invasion and replacement. Khan's kind-and-gentle approach has done more harm than the work of any terrorist.

Terrorists subvert and sabotage the globalist agenda. They force Europeans to wake up and take notice of the dangers unleashed by clash of peoples and cultures.
As such, Muslim terrorists should be prized as effective wreckers of globalism.

Far more dangerous are the globo-opiate-peddlers who addict Europeans to hedonism and self-righteous vanity(of PC) as distractions while releasing the CO gas of replacement-immigration to overwhelm and dispose of European peoples and cultures.

Diversity Demands Sensitivity. Open Borders mean Shut Mouths. Globalism says Identity has value only as Minority.

Immigration-Invasion by other races is like guests arriving but never leaving your house. It’s like kids of other families coming over to play but never leaving and, if anything, demanding to be clothed and fed.

Diversity is like always having strangers in and about your house.
Diversity demands Sensitivity, which means you can’t say or express anything that might ‘offend’ strangers and invaders who won’t leave.
Just like you can’t relax in your home with strangers around, you can’t be open and free in your nation with Diversity.

Open Borders mean Shut Mouths. Diversity demands Sensitivity, and a Culture of Sensitivity means Censorship of Real Feelings and Closing of Honest Minds.
Your nation, in which you once could express yourself freely, has become a place where you have to look over your shoulders and watch what you say, and for what and why? To serve Diversity and facilitate takeover by foreigners as ‘new nationals’.

That is globalism and current state of the world.

This is why Jews spread homomania all over. The Spread of homomania means every nation must be Sensitive to the elite-minority vanity of homos. It means the silencing of the great normal sane decent majority to appease and flatter a deviant minority. Once this mentality takes root in a nation, its mind-infected populace is more likely to surrender to foreign invasion and appease the nasty sensitivities of minorities-as-new-nationals.

Under the law of globalism, you have more pride, rights, dignity, and honor as a minority than as a majority. So, if you’re a Japanese in Japan, you suck. But if you’re a Japanese minority in Australia or the US, you are special and to be 'celebrated'. If you’re a Hindu in India, you ain't nothing special. But if you’re a Hindu in Canada, you are such a darling. If you’re a Muslim in the Muslim world, you and your kind deserve to be bombed back to the stone age by globalism’s Wars for Israel. But if you’re a Muslim minority in the West, you are the most wonderful kind of person who must be shielded from 'Islamophobia'.

Globalism says “You suck in your own homeland where you are the majority, and your ethnic pride in your nation is ‘far right’ and evil’”… however, “If you leave your homeland and become a minority in another country, you are so wonderful and your ethnic identity, along with homomania(which attaches itself to everything like germs) must be celebrated.”

So, in your own nation where your ethnicity and culture have the best chance of survival, such have no honor & value and must bow down to the foreign ethnic groups and cultures of the world.

But in foreign nations where your ethnicity and culture have very low chance of survival, such have great value and honor(especially as tools of globalists to undermine the majority ethnicity and culture of that nation).

What a wacky set of rules. But that’s how globalism works.
It's like saying rabbits have no value on land and should only be prized underwater(where they will drown and disappear).
It's like saying fish have no value in water and should only be prized on land(where they will die). Yeah, by the butchers of globalism who would turn all of us into fusion sushi.

Globalist Rule: Your identity is evil and ugly where your the majority, but it's noble and beautiful where you're a minority.
So, in your nation where your kind is the majority, you must invite more diversity to make your identity less-majoritarian-dominant, therefore less 'evil'.
And if you want to be praised and admired for your identity, you must move to another nation and make a big fuss about your new minority status. But as a minority, what chance does your kind have of retaining ethnic identity for long?

Now, what is to be the common bond among all peoples in the end where all cultures are diluted and degraded by globalism?
Homomania. By praising homos-as-elite-minorities above all, the entire world will be pro-elite-minoritarian, and that is wonderful for Jews, the most powerful elite-minority in the world. Worshiping homos is gateway to worshiping Jews as homos are elite-minority-proxies of Jews as elite-minority-masters of the world.

Saturday, June 17, 2017

A People without Patriotism is like Organisms without Defensive Mechanisms. Globalism is Secular Rapture.

All organisms have defensive mechanism.

Organisms can only survive by assessing threat and acting upon them. As humans are organisms, they are no different. In order for race-culture to survive on a territory, it must defend and preserve itself from outsiders and invaders. While it's true that every nation has history of invasions and incursions, they only became stable civilizations when there was sufficient political, military, and legal power to protect the nation from further invasions. Without such security and stability, national order isn't possible. This is why stuff like 'UK is a nation of immigrants' is retarded. UK was constantly invaded BEFORE it was a nation. The invaders came at will on warships and laid waste to native populations. (Also, the invaders of the past were fellow white Europeans, so they could eventually meld with the existing populations.) Once Britain gained security, order, and power, it defended itself from further foreign invasions. If foreigners did arrive(and settle), it was with the permission of the state in consideration of national interest.
A nation that cannot stop or control the inflow of outsiders is the victim of military imperialism, demographic imperialism, and/or financial-ideological imperialism(that colonizes native souls with the mental virus that 'diversity' is good when it spells doom for native identity and culture).

Look at nature. All animals must sense and assess degrees of threat level. When humans encroach on wolf territory, the wolves growl. Hippos don't like Negroes coming closer with spears. Bears fight other bears to maintain territory for food, mating, and security. Birds guard their nest and attack threatening species. Without such defensive mechanisms, no complex organism could survive. Bees don't just allow any bunch of organisms to come and eat the honey. Bees work like crazy to collect the honey to feed their own community. (Some say modern societies cannot produce enough life and that's why they need immigration to get new workers. But if modern societies have given up on life, it means they are soul-sick and culturally misguided, and THAT DISEASE should be diagnosed and treated. If someone won't eat, don't give his food to another person. Convince him to eat again.)

Globalism has infected Western minds with the notion that their natural defensive mechanism is 'evil', 'racist', and 'xenophobic'. It dilutes hormonal instincts and weakens carnivorous instincts, turning whites into human herbivores. Brits have been turned from lions(without a powerful pride of territory) to rabbits(who just wander around aimlessly in their own nation without claiming it).

Globalism is like quasi-spiritual cult of rapture. It’s the Promise of Deliverance, a hopeful ecstasy of departing from the ‘sinful’ nationalist flesh and becoming one with the transcendent globalist spirit. It's secular cult of being 'saved'.
Since all histories are associated with cultures/nations and since all cultures/nations are stained ‘sinful’ deeds, globalism offers deliverance from 'tribal' sins via collective union o all peoples in Glob Heaven. This rapture is experienced through PC kumbayah and Pop Culture orgiastics. Take leave of roots, senses, and obligations. Just scream, feel orgasmic, and let one’s soul lift from national earth to globo-heaven.

So, even though UK is being remade by massive invasion, Brits have no defensive mechanism left. If Brits still have any aggressive drives left, it is against their own will for self-preservation. (Jewish ideological control infected British minds with the sanctimonious notion that white Britons must serve the interests of the holy Jewish minority before their own. This elevation of minority-as-sacred-group led to white Britons placing every non-white minority above whites on the national pedestal. In time, white Britons even came to worship homos. That this is a globalist-imperialist phenomenon is made clear by what is happening in Ireland. Even though the Irish have defined their own narrative against Great Britain, its current national agenda is identical to that of the British because both nations are under globalist Sorosian control. Both nations worship non-white minorities and homos above native whites and real-sexuals who are to be attacked and denounced if they resist massive immigration-invasion and homomania. This is why Ireland has a Hindu-Homo prime minister and why London has a Pakistani-Muslim mayor. The two peoples who never agreed on much are now totally agreed on national self-destruction and white self-loathing as the highest virtue. Other than the ideological infection of Jewish-controlled globalism, there is the factor of Afromania and Jungle Fever that have whites all over the world worshiping Negroes as MLK-Mandela Magic Negro race and 'cool-badass' race whom whites must admire, praise, and emulate 24/7.)

It used to be Brits were most aggressive against would-be invaders, such as Spanish or Germans. Now, they are most aggressive against would-be-patriots-and-defenders. Brits get most passionate about attacking and destroying patriots and offering UK to the Sorosian god of globalism. UK is no longer seen as a nation among nations but a part of a globo-rapture-empire of Jew-worship, homomania, Afromania, and Diversity. UK must serve that higher god by surrendering national identity, borders, and sovereignty. UK is now to the world what Puerto Rico is to the US.
And the elites of UK, instead of standing up for national defense and preservation, lead the nation in surrendering to globalism and mammon. Also, elites have used the media and academia to infect the younger generation with the idea that UK has always been a 'nation of immigrants', a defenseless domain that welcomes invasions than fends them off.

What UK really needs is AUSTERITY AGAINST DIVERSITY, 'diversity' being just euphemism for invasion.

Now, some organisms are compatible. Even in the wild, lions coexist with gophers, turtles, vultures, and etc. The biggest threat to lions are other lions.
Likewise, people of any nation can co-exist with birds, squirrels, pond turtles, seagulls, chipmunks, rabbits, raccoon, opossums, and etc. People need to fear other peoples the most, just like lions need to fear other prides of lions the most. White Australians have nothing to fear from kangaroos, koala bears, or wombats. Not even from crocodiles as long as one doesn't get too near them and prod them with sticks. They have far more to fear from massive immigration of Asians, Arabs, and Africans.

Different groups of humans have competing identities, interests, narratives, and appetites.
Palestinians weren't done in by pigeons, fish, or jackals. They were done in by other humans: the British imperialists, Zionists, Soviets, and Americans.
Tibetans and Uighurs are not being done in by sheep, eagles, toads, or snakes. They are being done in by other humans, the Han Chinese. The biggest threat to any organism is, more often than not, others of its own kind. Because they have similar objectives, they compete and fight for the same thing. It's like a man who wants a certain woman need not compete with male pigs, wolves, moose, hippos, wombats, and etc for her. Those other species are not interested in the woman. He must compete with other men. A horse, bison, bear, hamster, python, or cougar will not take a white woman from a white man. It is the Negro who will.

Nation is the same way. To own it, a people must compete with other peoples. Lose the defensive mechanism(under whatever fancy pants 'progressive' idealism), and it's only a matter of time before you lose your nation, narrative, and culture.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Notable Films of the 21st Century

Platinum List:

Mulholland Dr.
Werckmeister Harmonies
Still Walking
Wicker Park
Mothman Prophecies
High Fidelity
Insomnia (Remake)
Memories of Murder
Ghost World
Damsels in Distress
Assassination of Jesse James
Farewell (French)

Gold List:

Tron Legacy
The Hunt(Danish)
The World’s End
A Serious Man
Indiana Jones and Kingdom of Crystal Skull
Slow West
Kings of Summer
Life of Pi
August: Osage County
O Brother Where Art Thou
Take Care of My Cat
Into the Wild
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Amores Perros
House of Mirth
Tropical Malady
Snow White and the Huntsman
New Moon
The Counselor
The Others
American Splendor
Lost in Translation
Hurt Locker
Master and Commander
K-19: Widowmaker
The Return
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Beyond the Sea
Count of Monte Cristo
Everlasting Moments
Triad Election
Sunset Song
Sunflower (China)
The Informant!
11 Flowers
The Way Back
Safe Conduct
Before I Disappear
Barbarian Invasions
Map to the Stars

Silver List:

Shaun of the Dead
Hot Fuzz
Me and Orson Welles
Scanner Darkly
Everybody Wants Some
Panic Room
The Village
Blue Jasmine
Inside Llewyn Davis
Wolf of Wall Street
Summer Hours
Toni Erdmann
The Conspirator
Beijing Bicycle
Michael Clayton
Bridge of Spies
Adventures of Tintin
Catch Me If You Can
Minority Report
American Sniper
Flags of Our Fathers
Letters from Iwo Jima
Rescue Dawn
Despicable Me
The German Doctor
Last Orders
No Man’s Land
Three (Johnnie To)
Son’s Room
Blade Runner 2049
Chasing Sleep
Waking Life
Yellow Asphalt
State and Main
City of God / City of Men
The Pianist
The Rules of Attraction
Twilight Samurai
Goodbye Lenin
Tristan and Isolde
Art School Confidential
Bourne Identity
No Country for Old Men
The Wrestler
Black Sea
An Education
Shutter Island
Like Father Like Son
Nobody Knows
Our Little Sister
Silent Souls
Ripley's Game
Diving Bell and Butterfly
4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days
In the City of Sylvia
The Sun (Russo-Japan)
Time Out
Crimson Gold
Act of Killing
Lady and the Duke
The Great Beauty
This Must Be the Place
Only Lovers Left Alive
Breaking Dawn Pt 1
The Day
Queen and Country
The Tiger's Tail
The Mist
Ender’s Game
Blind Mountain
Not on My Lips
All Is Lost
Hidden Blade
Love and Honor
Best of Youth
Hana and Alice
Anything Else
Requiem for a Dream

Bronze List:

Phil Spector
All About Lily-Chou-Chou
Internal Affairs
The Master
Café Society
In a World
Lone Survivor
American Pastoral
Bad Lieutenant
Little Miss Sunshine
Last Samurai
Matchstick Men
Donnie Darko
Piano Teacher
Diary of the Dead
Boiler Room
My Dog Skip
The Happening
American Hustle
In the Bedroom
Blackhawk Down
Beautiful Mind
Matrix Revolutions
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
End of the Tour
Mistress America
Kicking and Screaming
Moonrise Kingdom
Mesrine: Killer Instinct
Mesrine: Public Enemy #1
Coming Home
Cold in July
Elite Squad 1 & 2
The Box
Gran Torino
United 93
World of Kanako
The Prestige
The Ward
Session 9
Casino Jack

Fool’s Gold List:

Resident Evil
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Resident Evil: Extinction
Resident Evil: Afterlife
Resident Evil: Retribution
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter
Jeepers Creepers
127 Hrs
Hunger Games
The American

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Globalism is the Greatest Evil. Tyranny of Bad Ideas is Temporary. Tyranny of Demographic Transformation is Permanent.

Demographic Imperialism and Replacism are the most ruinous phenoms that can befall a nation, people, and culture.
Ideological disasters are nothing by contrast in the long run.
Ideas exist in the mind and may eventually pass away. Even an idea as disastrous as communism was no big deal in the wider scope of history.

While communism can wreak havoc on a nation’s economy, once it’s relegated to the dustbin of history, the nation and its people & culture remain intact and can thrive once more.
Communism oppressed Poles in Poland and Hungarians in Hungary, but Poland remained the nation of Poles and Hungary remained the nation of Hungarians. A nation under communism is tyrannized by a bad idea, not by a foreign people.

In the end, ideologies are come-and-go. Bad ideas lead to bad socio-economic results, but ideas do not alter or erase the essential character of a nation’s people and culture.

But demographic imperialism and replacism do just that. Once masses of foreigners take over a nation, they mean to stay and, absent a serious war and revolution, they will take over and grow in numbers until the native population has been eclipsed and replaced.

Communism’s ill effects on Eastern Europe were NOTHING compared to globalism’s fatal impact on France, UK, Germany, and Sweden.
Nations under communism could eventually be rid of the ideology, and once freed of the illusion, could carry on with the same people and culture.
But after globalism is finished with Western Europe, the result will be an entirely new world populated by Muslims and Africans.
It’s a daunting challenge to rid society of bad ideas and institutions, but it’s a gargantuan(and even impossible) task to be rid of demographic imperialists once they’ve taken over your own nation. Serbs will never take back Kosovo. Palestinians lost Palestine(now Israel) forever.

Communism was about proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. As economically disastrous as it was, the nation still belonged to its people at the end of the day since the proles and bourgeoisie were of the same ethnicity and class. So, Romania run by dictatorship of the proletariat was still Romania dominated by Romanians.

If communism is about one class replacing another in power, globalism is about foreign ethnics replacing the native ethnic. This isn’t merely an ideological struggle but a biological and cultural one. Upon its victory, all nations(except for Israel, which is ‘passovered’ with special exemption) are transformed by globalism to the extent that native folks no longer even own and control what had been their homelands. Globalism is about making every people(except Jews in Israel) strangers in their own homeland. It turns a nation of kinfolk into a nation of strangers and foreign usurpers. The native folks are duped into welcoming this dire fate by having their minds infected with delirious mantras such as ‘Diversity is our Strength’ when only an idiot could believe such.
Globalism is appealing to the elites of advanced nations since it means more opportunities to make a buck. And it is appealing to masses in poor nations since it means an opportunity to demographically migrate to rich nations and leech off them.
It is also appealing to holier-than-thou me-huggers who see globalism as a utopian project of making the whole world sing in perfect harmony.
But for patriotic natives who care about preservation of ethnicity, culture, and history, it is an absolute tragedy.

In this sense, globalism is a far greater evil than communism. Communism forced bad ideas on a nation like Poland. It didn’t force Poland to be invaded and transformed by non-Europeans.

In contrast, globalism says Europe MUST welcome endless invasions by tons of foreigners, and its native populations must be REPLACED. And if Europeans say NO to Replacism, they are defamed as ‘Nazis’ by globalist forces controlled by Jews.

Anyway, the ill-effects of bad ideas can be reversed and repaired. But the impact of bad demographic policies is often irreversible. If you adopt a stupid idea, the stupidity is eradicated once you come to your senses. But if you swallow poison, its fatal consequences can’t be reversed even if your mind realizes you did something dumb. The poison will take over your body and will destroy you.

Communism was a bad idea that infected Europeans in the 20th century. Once European minds rejected the idea, it was gone for good.
In contrast, globalism force-feeds mega-doses of poison(in the form of massive foreign invasion) as ‘medicine’ to Europeans, and the poison spreads all over Europe.

Bad ideas, as illusions, are real only to the extent that certain people believe in them. Once the faith is gone, the ideas are also gone.
People are different. They are real, and once a foreign people take over your nation, they are there to stay regardless of what you think.

Imagine if your people adopt Islam as an idea. It may be a bad idea, but it’s just an idea. Therefore, there is the chance that your people may one day reject Islam and be rid of it.

Now, imagine if your people adopt Islam and accept 10 million Muslims. The dire reality is that those invaders are now part of your nation no matter what you think. Even if your people reject Islam, those 10 million Muslims and their offsprings are in your land and taking over. That is what globalism does and not to just one nation but all nations(except Israel). It is the greatest evil the world has ever seen.

Tyranny of Ideas is transitory and reversible. It can be undone once the native people realize the badness of those ideas.

Tyranny of Demographics is permanent and irreversible. It can't be undone even when the native people realize they made a huge mistake in letting in all those invasive foreigners.

It is the difference between Acute Illness and Chronic Illness. Globalism leads to chronic disease for any nation that surrenders to its agenda.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Demographic Numerology Game: Globalism says NATION IS A NUMBER. Don't you believe it.

Globalist use the Numbers Game to hoodwink peoples around the world.

Globalists say if a nation has a certain population, that NUMBER = NATION.

So, if Nation A has 50 million people of A-ethnicity, that nation MUST maintain that number in order to 'survive' as that nation. So, if the population is anticipated to decline to 40 million, it has to get 10 million people to maintain the magic number of 50 million. So, numbers trump ethnicity. According to this view, Nation A with 40 million people of A-ethnicity is less A-ish than Nation A with 40 million people of A-ethnicity and 10 million people of B-ethnicity.

Take Poland. Its population is 40 million. Suppose Poland's population is destined to decline to 20 million in 100 yrs. Now, a sane person will say Poland will be Poland whether it has 40 million or 20 million since Poles live in Poland. But globalists will differ and say 20 million people(even if non-Polish) must be added to keep Poland Polish. So, Poland is essentially a number. According to globalists, a Poland that is 20 million Polish and 20 million Nigerian is more Polish than a Poland that is all Polish at 20 million. Indeed, by globalist rules, a Poland that is 40 million Nigerian(with no Poles) is more Polish than a Poland that is 20 or 30 million all Polish.

Globalism says there is no deep connection of ethnicity, territory, and history for a nation. Anyone who barges into Poland has a 'human right' to be Polish. So, if 10 million Nigerians barge into Poland for gibs-me-free-stuff, they are Polish. And if real Poles condemn such invasion and demand that the Negroes return to Nigeria, they are un-Polish since such 'xenophobia' is not what 'European values' are all about.

Using this globalist logic, we could argue that Jews were not Jews after WWII. After all, if a people are defined by a number, then Jews were no longer Jews since they lost millions in the Holocaust, anywhere from 4 to 6 million. Let's assume the number of Jewish dead in WWII is 6 million.

Now, by some estimates, the Jewish population of Europe prior to WWII & Holocaust was 10 million. So, Jewishness = 10 million people. Since 6 million were lost in the war & extermination, it means Jews were no longer Jewish since 6 million were gone and the magic # of 10 million was lost. In order for Jews to be Jewish again, the 6 million losses have to filled in by any bunch of people. So, using globalist logic, Jews should have recruited 6 million gentiles to become 'New Jews' in order for Jews to be Jewish once again. And since Poles lost 3 million in the law, they had to get 3 million more people(even if non-Polish) to be Polish again.

Now, you see how stupid such logic is. Whether there are 1 million Jews, 3 million Jews, 5 million Jews, or 10 million Jews, the fact of Jewishness isn't about statistics but ethnics. If a Jewish nation has 1 million Jews or 10 million Jews, it is Jewish if Jews are the predominant ethnic group of the nation. If Nigeria has 100 million people and if all of them die due to some epidemic, it is not Nigeria again if 100 million Hindus or Russians resettle it. It will be New India or New Russia.

But globalists are playing a clever numbers game in persuading nations that their essence and identity are pegged to some demographic magic number. So, if Japan currently has 100 million, it must maintain that number in order to remain Japan. If the population goes down to 70 million, that ain't Japan no more. It needs 30 million additional people --- even if non-Asian and disruptive to Japanese society --- in order for Japan to remain Japanese.

Globalism is controlled largely by Jews, and if Jews want to use such logic, then we should say Jews in Europe are not Jewish since there are only 1.5 million Jews in current Europe. Since Jewish population of Europe was 10 million in 1939, there has to be 10 million Jews in Europe today in order for Jews to be Jews. So, what current Jews-in-Europe need to do is to turn 8.5 million gentiles into 'New Jews' in order to reach that magic number of 10 million.
Only then will there be Jews in Europe again. Therefore, unless Jews accept 8.5 million gentiles as 'New Jews', there are no real Jews in Europe since demographic numerology says there must be 10 million Jews in Europe in order for Jews to 'survive' as Jews.
Sounds crazy? Well, that's what Jewish globalists tell goyim around the world.

Don't you believe it.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Muslim Terrorist Attacks in the West are partly the Continuation of the Clash of Cultures between Arab Islamism and African Savagery

There's long been a violent Clash of Cultures between the Muslim World(especially Arab) and the Afro-pagan World. Arab Muslims considered black Africans to be wild, savage, lascivious, and beastly. So, Arab Muslims not only enslaved black Africans but castrated them to tame their Jungle Nature. It was Jihad Justice against Jungle Junk. This went on over many centuries. Scholars say Arabs enslaved millions of black Africans, seeing them as little more than animals.
But Arabs also spread Islam among black Africans, and many black Africans became Muslims and waged Culture War on other black Africans who were seen as mired in tribal-pagan-savagery.
As both the West and the Muslim World were dominated by spiritual institutions and communal values, the main thrust of their moral-cultural narrative was directed against black African savagery that was regarded in a negative light, not good for much of anything. White Christians and Arab Muslims held that black Africans had value only as slaves or converts to Christianity or Islam. They didn't find intrinsic value in black African-ness.

That was then, this is now. With the ebbing of religion and morality in the West, Pop Culture became the main mode of cultural expression and experience. Also, with the fading of traditional mores and authorities, the new religion became Political Correctness or Cult of Social Justice. PC came to be controlled by Jews. YMCA buildings in colleges are now more likely to host homo celebration or hip hop orgy.

This gave a huge advantage to blacks. With the rise of electro-amplified Pop Culture, black music or black-inspired music came to dominate the modern world. The most popular music among Western elites is reggae. Among ordinary people, it's Rap or Hip Hop. Also, sports as the New National Culture led to worship of blacks as local heroes since blacks are most athletic. Also, the erosion of moral values led to sexual licentiousness, and the cult of black twerking booty and hung black dong became iconic in the Western/Modern consciousness. Black savagery, once regarded as the lowest state of human existence, became the most popular and in-demand(even though this techno-savagery often appeared in the form of imitation by white, brown, Jewish, Asian, or Hindu performers).

So, if the religious-moralistic Arab Muslim World and the White Christian World once had in common their low regard of black savagery as just backward, animal-like, crazy, and beastly, those facets of blackness came to be admired, adulated, fetishized, sensationalized, and even revered in the Age of Electronic Mammon, at least in the technologically advanced West.

White girls now grow up to Rap music and Jungle Fever. White boys now grow up admiring black athletes who routinely beat up white males and colonize white wombs. Cuck-dom is the state of the Modern West, and most white men(except those in the Alt Right) have accepted their inferior racial status via-a-vis blacks. This is why we have 'whiggers'(and even 'chiggers' or yellows who appropriate blackness to compensate for their innate 'lameness'), but we don't have blacks trying to imitate country music or J-Pop.
Much of Pop Culture in the US and EU are variations of Jungle Fever where white girls imitate black girls and fantasize about having sex with blacks and having mulatto babies. And there is hardly any resistance from white males since they've been lobotomized and castrated. (White fathers are more afraid to say, "I wish my white daughter marries a white guy" than "I'd be proud to see my daughter be knocked up by a black guy." ) Indeed, even after Muslim bombings, these cucked out males condemn terrorism mainly in defense of concerts that promote Jungle Fever among white girls and cuck-wussiness among white males. For most whites, Homomania and Jungle Fever are their main cults or neo-religions. 

But blacks prevail over whites not only with sports, music, and sex. Because of the Slavery Narrative(and milking of 'white guilt' by PC) and the bellowing voice of the Negro, whites also see blacks as the Magic Race, the Holy Race, the soulful people of god. Your average white American worships MLK more than God; your average European worships Mandela more than Jesus. Whites feel no comparable reverence for figures of other races.  Even Gandhi has faded in appeal. Dalai Lama is more a figure of adoration than adulation.

But if White post-Christian West surrendered to Black Savagery, the Arab Muslim World is still in a state of Culture War with Black Africa. Arab Muslims never felt sorry or apologetic for their imperialism in Africa or black slave trade. If Christian morality is steeped in the cult of guilt, Islam is immersed in other matters. Muhammad preached to his followers to be warriors, hardy and ruthless. So, Arabs don't feel sorry or guilty about their historical role in Africa.
Also, if Christianity is a spent force and only survives in its secularized form of PC, Islam is still very much alive as a spiritual and moral force. As such, it continues to view black African culture as savage, backward, beastly, and demonic. If the West gave up its traditional certitudes and now worships Negroes as heroes, studs, angels, and demigods, the Arab Muslims still regard themselves as culturally, morally, and spiritually more advanced than black Africans, indeed by light years.

So, it must be strange for Arab Muslims to come to the West only to realize that black techno-savage culture is favored over Islamic values by the white natives who are into reggae, jungle fever, black sports, and Magic Negro idolatry. Hail Mandela but hell with Ayatollah and Arafat.

Even though Muslim terrorism is characterized in terms of Islam vs 'Western Values', it is really a Culture War between Arab Islamism and Black Africanism(that has culturally colonized the West and is now sexually colonizing the wombs of white women, with the sheepish approval of pathetic cucked-out white males). It is Jihad vs Jungle, a Clash of Cultures that's been going on over a thousand years. This battle is now being waged on Western Soil since both black Africans and Muslims have been allowed in huge numbers.

This aspect of the clash eludes detection under the radar because some of the Muslim attackers are black Africans and most of the victims are white Europeans. (Of course, there is also the factor of PC pushing the fanciful notion of all People of Colors being united against 'white racism'.) But devout black Muslims have made the cultural shift from Jungle Jive to Jihad Justice. They've come to reject Afro-pagan-savagery.
Also, those white victims of terrorism are often 'whiggers' to the extent that their main mode of entertainment and enjoyment involve black sports, sex, and music.
In that sense, the so-called Clash of Civilizations we see today isn't Islam vs the West but Islam(still a spiritual-moral force) vs Whiggers(whose main objects of worship are electro-amplified Afro-savagery and homomania).

The Uneasy Dynamics of Rancor, Religion, and Rationality

Religion stands in the way of reason, but intellect or higher mental activity is impossible without restraint of savage nature, the animal rancor in the heart of every man. Savage nature is beastly & brutish and prefers breeding & fighting over reading and writing. It has no use for learning, reflection, or cultivation of heart & soul. It is about the law of the jungle.

Religion suppresses & restrains animal rancor and steadies & prepares the mind for reflection & contemplation. Thus, religiosity/spirituality cultivates the life of the mind even as scriptures place strictures on what can be thought and said.

Rationality had to break out of the taboos of religiosity, but then, reason could arise only after spiritual authority had forced chaotic animal rancor inside the cage and tamed it.

Reason is the bird that flew out of the cage of religion, without which the wild cat of animal nature would have devoured the bird while still inside the egg. For there to be higher freedom of the mind, the lower freedom of savage instinct must be tamed. And religion played a key role in restraining lower freedoms so that higher freedom could finally arise, though, to be sure, they had to break out of the confines of religious taboos.

As most people weren't sufficiently smart or privileged for higher thought, the only viable option for them were spiritually guided moral life of restraints OR animal-driven beastly existence of excesses. If most people were moral, a stable community was possible and could sustain institutions for higher learning. But if most people were barbaric, social chaos ensued and even smart people had to scramble just to survive. (There are smart people in Africa, but they can't cultivate the life of the mind because most Africans indulge in animal nature of jungle boogie. Same is true in most black-majority communities in the the West.)

With the fading of religious authority and the weakening of constraints on animal nature, we are now witnessing the degradation and destruction of Western civilization by the savagery of black thuggery, harlotry of slut pride, and decadence of homo vanity. Blacks are especially dangerous because their animal nature is more aggressive, wild, destructive, and beastly than those of other races.

If there is a kind of 'religion' in the current West, it is Political Correctness, the official dogma of Jewish-controlled Globalism, that enforces taboos on honest minds that notice that the Emperor has no clothes. Honest people see the reality of racial differences and its dire implications. They also perceive the threat to the West(or any sane civilization) posed by black savagery, homo degeneracy, Jewish supremacism(via globalism), and feminist insipidity, but inquisitional PC imposes the politics of silence, shunning, or witch-burning on any brave soul who refuses to cower before the court of globalist dogma.
Actually, shallow & stupid PC is worse than real religions, which, at the very least and despite their repressive dimensions, were grounded in genuine contemplation, profundity of vision, and reflection of higher truths. PC is just a disingenuous tool of Jewish supremacists to bait and milk 'white guilt' so that there won't be a viable challenge to Jewish Power.